| 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: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:14:09 -0700 From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] netpoll: rework skb transmit queue On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:52:26 -0700 (PDT) David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org> > Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 12:25:27 -0700 > > > Sorry, but why should we treat out-of-tree vendor code any > > differently than out-of-tree other code. > > I think what netdump was trying to do, provide a way to > requeue instead of fully drop the SKB, is quite reasonable. > Don't you think? Yes, but the queued vs non-queued stuff showed up out of order. The queued messages go through the wrong Tx path. ie. they end up going into to NIT etc, since the deferred send uses a work queue it wouldn't work for last-gasp messages or netdump since getting a work queue to run requires going back to scheduler and processes running... and it should use skb_buff_head instead of roll your own queueing. The other alternative would be to make the send logic non-blocking and fully push retry to the caller. I'll make a fix to netdump, if I can find it. -- Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...l.org> - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists