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:	Thu, 06 Jun 2013 10:50:18 +0800
From:	Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next v3 3/3] igmp: convert RTNL lock to a spinlock

On Wed, 2013-06-05 at 19:40 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-06-06 at 10:20 +0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> > From: Cong Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
> > 
> > It is not necessary to hold RTNL lock to protect mc_list,
> > at least IPv6 mcast is using a local spinlock, IPv4 can do
> > this too. This patch converts RTNL lock+RCU to spinlock+RCU.
> > 
> 
> Why are you doing this ? 

RTNL is becoming another big kernel lock, we should not hold it unless
we have to, right?

> 
> Really, holding a spinlock in this code instead of a mutex brings all
> kind of problems.
> 
> For example, you have to use GFP_ATOMIC allocations instead of
> GFP_KERNEL
> 
> Not counting the race/bug you added in ip_mc_join_group()
> 

Maybe I should replace the spinlock with a mutex?


--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists