linux-kernel - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie

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: <4AEEDBBC.40800@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 02 Nov 2009 14:16:44 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
CC:	Linux Kernel Developers <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie

William Allen Simpson a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> cookie_hash() runs in a non preemptable context. CPU cannot change
>> under us.
>>
>> (or else, we would not use __get_cpu_var(ipv4_cookie_scratch); )
>>
>> And of course, each cpu gets its own scratch area, thanks to
>> __get_cpu_var()
>>
> Interesting.  I'm not sure that running CPU intensive functions like
> SHA1 in
> a non-preemptable context is a good idea.  I'd assumed it wasn't!
> 
> Perhaps you could point at the documentation in the code that explains
> this?

I suggest you read Documentations/ files about softirq

http://docs.blackfin.uclinux.org/kernel/generated/kernel-hacking.xml


Large part of network code is run by softirq handler, and a softirq handler
is not preemptable with another softirq (including itself).


> Perhaps a function header comment that mentions it?

So we are going to add a header to thousand of functions repeating this prereq ?

> 
> All I know is (from testing) that the tcp_minisockets.c caller is sometimes
> called in a fashion that requires atomic allocation, and other times
> does not!

Maybe callers have different contexts (running from softirq handler or
from process context). Atomic ops are expensive and we try to avoid them
if/when possible.

> 
> See my "Subject: query: tcpdump versus atomic?" thread from Oct 14th.

You probably add a bug in your kernel, leaving a function with unpaired lock/unlock
of notallow_something/allow_something

There are books about linux internals that you could read if you want some extra
documentation. Dont ask me details, I never read them :)

--
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/