linux-kernel - [PATCH 0/5] forcedeth: several proposed updates for testing

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20071006151250.GA17020@havoc.gtf.org>
Date:	Sat, 6 Oct 2007 11:12:50 -0400
From:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>
To:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ayaz Abdulla <aabdulla@...dia.com>
Cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 0/5] forcedeth: several proposed updates for testing

The 'fe-lock' branch of
git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jgarzik/netdev-2.6.git fe-lock

contains the following changes that I would like to get tested:

      [netdrvr] forcedeth: make NAPI unconditional
      [netdrvr] forcedeth: interrupt handling cleanup
      [netdrvr] forcedeth: process TX completions using NAPI
      [netdrvr] forcedeth: internal simplification and cleanups
      [netdrvr] forcedeth: timer overhaul

These are intended for feedback and testing, NOT for merging.

The goals of these changes are:
* move the driver towards a more sane, simple, easy to verify locking
  setup -- irq handler would often acquire/release the lock twice
  for each interrupt -- and hopefully

* to eliminate a rarely used, apparently fragile locking scheme that
  includes heavy use of disable_irq().  this tool is most often employed
  during NIC reset/reconfiguration, so satisfying this goal implies
  changing the way NIC reset and config are accomplished.

Miscellaneous notes:
* using the new napi_struct stuff in net-2.6.24, the TX completion
  process has been moved to a -separate- NAPI polling channel.  thus
  there are now two napi_structs, one for RX and one for TX, independent
  of each other.

* I feel TX NAPI is a useful tool, because it provides an independent TX
  process control point and system load feedback point.
  Thus I felt this was slightly superior to tasklets.

* But who knows if this is a good idea?  :)  I am interested in
  feedback and criticism on this issue.

-
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/