netdev - Re: [PATCH v3 8/7] pppoatm: fix missing wakeup in pppoatm

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 11 Nov 2012 15:26:41 +0000
From:	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
To:	Krzysztof Mazur <krzysiek@...lesie.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Chas Williams - CONTRACTOR <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>,
	davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 8/7] pppoatm: fix missing wakeup in pppoatm_send()

On Sun, 2012-11-11 at 14:50 +0100, Krzysztof Mazur wrote:
> Looks and works ok after:
> +       atmvcc->unlock_cb = pppoatm_unlock_cb;

Heh, yeah. That would probably help :)

Not sure if it's really necessary to optimise out the unneeded wakeups —
I don't think that code path gets exercised very hard for normal passing
of packets. Maybe only LCP echo and responses, on a live connection?

But yeah, the locking *is* that simple, isn't it — and not the painful
stuff I had to do for the BLOCKED flag, which is why I deferred that
question to concentrate on the basic concept of using ->release_cb().

So it's silly *not* to do the 'need_wakeup'. But could it also live in
the 'blocked' word rather than expanding the structure further? Or just
*use* the BLOCKED bit, for that matter?

-- 
dwmw2

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/x-pkcs7-signature" (6171 bytes)