linux-kernel - Re: posible latency issues in seq

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:	Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:39:24 -0600
From:	"Chris Friesen" <cfriesen@...tel.com>
To:	Lee Revell <rlrevell@...-job.com>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: posible latency issues in seq_read

Lee Revell wrote:
> On 7/20/07, Chris Friesen <cfriesen@...tel.com> wrote:

>> We've run into an issue (on 2.6.10) where calling "lsof" triggers lost
>> packets on our server.  Preempt is disabled, and NAPI is enabled.

> Can you reproduce with a recent kernel?  Lots of latency issues have
> been fixed since then.

Unfortunately I have to fix it on this version (the bug was found on 
shipped product), so if there was a difference I'd have to isolate the 
changes and backport them.  Also, I can't run the software that triggers 
the problem on a newer kernel as it has dependencies on various patches 
that are not in mainline.

Basically what I'd like to know is whether calling schedule() in 
seq_read() is safe or whether it would break assumptions made by 
seq_file users.

Chris
-
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/