linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0904151659360.4042@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:02:57 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
cc:	dada1@...mosbay.com, shemminger@...tta.com, kaber@...sh.net,
	jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com,
	jengelh@...ozas.de, 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)

On Wed, 15 Apr 2009, David Miller wrote:
> 
> I really think we should entertain the idea where we don't RCU quiesce
> when adding rules.  That was dismissed as not workable because the new
> rule must be "visible" as soon as we return to userspace but let's get
> real, effectively it will be.

I never understood that dismissal.

The new rule _will_ be visible as we return to user space. It's just that 
old packets may still be in flight in other queues.

But that is true even _without_ the "synchronize_net()". The old packets 
just had to make it slightly further in the queueing - but as far as user 
space is concerned, there is absolutely _zero_ difference between the two. 
In both cases it may see packets queued with the old rules. 

> I almost cringed when the per-spinlock idea was proposed, but per-cpu
> rwlocks just takes things too far for my tastes.

I really personally would prefer the RCU approach too. I don't think 
rwlocks are any more cringe-worthy than spinlocks, although it is true 
that they tend to be slightly more expensive.

The pure RCU "just get rid of the unnecessary 'serialze_net()'" approach 
seems to be clearly superior to either.

		Linus
--
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/