linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] net: fix race in the receive/select

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: <20090625.191141.261414015.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:11:41 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	davidel@...ilserver.org
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, oleg@...hat.com, jolsa@...hat.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	fbl@...hat.com, nhorman@...hat.com, htejun@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: fix race in the receive/select

From: Davide Libenzi <davidel@...ilserver.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:04:04 -0700 (PDT)

> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> 
>> Adding a plain smp_mb() in tcp_poll() for example would slowdown select()/poll() with NULL
>> timeout.
> 
> Do you think of it as good design adding an MB on a subsystem, because of 
> the special locking logic of another one?
> The (eventual) slowdown, IMO can be argued sideways, by saying that 
> non-socket users will pay the price for their polls.

Perhaps every performance argument is moot since spin_unlock() used to
have the barrier :-)
--
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/