[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49E72534.1060302@trash.net>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 14:31:48 +0200
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
CC: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
Jeff Chua <jeff.chua.linux@...il.com>,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
laijs@...fujitsu.com, r000n@...0n.net,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)
Jan Engelhardt wrote:
> On Thursday 2009-04-16 14:12, Patrick McHardy wrote:
>> Jan Engelhardt wrote:
>>>> So change per-cpu spinlocks to per-cpu rwlocks
>>>> and use read_lock() in ipt_do_table() to allow recursion...
>>>>
>>> iptables cannot quite recurse into itself due to the comefrom stuff.
>> Actually it can by using the REJECT target:
>
> Yes, but it has to return an absolute verdict (which REJECT does),
> so it's not really a recursion, it's more like a goto without return.
Its recursion in the sense that we reenter the same code path,
while holding a lock. The verdict is issued *after* recursing.
A (quite ugly) workaround would be to have ipt_REJECT queue
the packets to a temporary queue and have ipt_do_table call
dst_output() after dropping the lock.
--
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