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: <20090418094001.GA2369@ioremap.net>
Date:	Sat, 18 Apr 2009 13:40:01 +0400
From:	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
To:	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, shemminger@...tta.com,
	dada1@...mosbay.com, 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, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3)

Hi.

On Thu, Apr 16, 2009 at 06:28:12PM -0700, Paul E. McKenney (paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com) wrote:
> +/* Single bit for grace-period index, low-order bits are nesting counter. */
> +#define RCU_FGP_COUNT		1UL
> +#define RCU_FGP_PARITY		(1UL << (sizeof(long) << 2))
> +#define RCU_FGP_NEST_MASK	(RCU_FGP_PARITY - 1)
> +
> +extern long rcu_fgp_ctr;
> +DECLARE_PER_CPU(long, rcu_fgp_active_readers);
> +
> +static inline void rcu_read_lock_fgp(void)
> +{
> +	long tmp;
> +	long *uarp;
> +
> +	preempt_disable();
> +	uarp = &__get_cpu_var(rcu_fgp_active_readers);
> +	tmp = *uarp;
> +	if (likely(!(tmp & RCU_FGP_NEST_MASK)))
> +		*uarp = rcu_fgp_ctr;  /* Outermost rcu_read_lock(). */
> +	else
> +		*uarp = tmp + RCU_FGP_COUNT;  /* Nested rcu_read_lock(). */
> +	barrier();
> +}
> +
> +static inline void rcu_read_unlock_fgp(void)
> +{
> +	barrier();
> +	__get_cpu_var(rcu_fgp_active_readers)--;

Shouldn't it be rcu_fgp_active_readers - RCU_FGP_COUNT?
Although it is 1 by definition, it is more clear when understanding
what's going on here.

-- 
	Evgeniy Polyakov
--
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/