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
| ||
|
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