linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: per-cpu spin-lock with recursion (v0.8)

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: <1239988095.23397.4823.camel@laptop>
Date:	Fri, 17 Apr 2009 19:08:15 +0200
From:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	kaber@...sh.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	jeff.chua.linux@...il.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: per-cpu spin-lock with recursion (v0.8)

On Fri, 2009-04-17 at 08:14 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > Also, please dont call this a 'recursive lock', since it is not a general
> > recursive lock, as pointed by Linus and Paul.
> > 
> > Second question is about MAX_LOCK_DEPTH
> 
> I meant here the ~256 limit we have on preempt_count, not related to LOCKDEP

Very good point, so 256 nested spin_lock() instances will make the
kernel unhappy -- since we now (almost?) support up to 4096 cpus, this
seems like a no-no.

--
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/