netdev - Re: [PATCH] bonding: clear header_ops when last slave detached (v2)

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:	Wed, 19 Nov 2014 22:41:25 -0800
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
Cc:	Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bonding: clear header_ops when last slave detached (v2)

On Wed, 2014-11-19 at 14:26 -0800, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:00 PM, Wengang <wen.gang.wang@...cle.com> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, that's true. So the simplest way is move ipoib_header_ops to vmlinux.
> >
> 
> That is not an option. Perhaps you need RCU to protect the dev->header_ops
> pointer.

This _is_ a reasonable option, especially for stable kernels

ipoib_hard_header() is 100 bytes or less. Adding infrastructure all over
the kernel to be able to use RCU or module refcounting will cost much
more.

Tell me why it is ok for eth_header_ops() being static (while its _much_
bigger), and not for ipoib_header_ops. This looks pretty arbitrary to
me.



--
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