netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] atl1c: remove private tx lock

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:	Tue, 26 Apr 2016 01:16:42 +0200
From:	Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com>
To:	Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Jay Cliburn <jcliburn@...il.com>,
	Chris Snook <chris.snook@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/6] atl1c: remove private tx lock

Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de> :
> Francois Romieu <romieu@...zoreil.com> wrote:
[...]
> > Play it safe and keep the implicit local_irq_{save / restore} call ?
> > 
> > It may not be needed but it will help avoiding any unexpected regression
> > report pointing at the NETDEV_TX_LOCKED removal change.
> 
> I thought about that but it doesn't prevent the irq handler from
> running on another CPU, so leaving it around seemed like cargo culting
> to me...

I don't mind removing it in a different patch at all. I'd rather see
the commit history underline that it's unrelated to whatever
NETDEV_TX_LOCKED / LLTX change.

> I don't have an atl1c, but the atl1e in my laptop seems to work fine
> with the (similar) change.
> 
> If you disagree I can respin with local_irq_save of course, but, if
> 'playing it safe' is main goal then its simpler to convert
> spin_trylock_irqsave to spin_lock_irqsave.

Your call, really.

-- 
Ueimor