linux-kernel - Re: [PULL] modules-next

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]

Date:	Thu, 18 Dec 2014 21:01:22 -0800
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>
Cc:	Ionut Alexa <ionut.m.alexa@...il.com>,
	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PULL] modules-next

On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 4:55 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au> wrote:
>
> The exciting thing here is the getting rid of stop_machine on module
> removal.  This is possible by using a simple atomic_t for the counter,
> rather than our fancy per-cpu counter: it turns out that no one is doing
> a module increment per net packet, so the slowdown should be in the noise.

Famous last words. It may not happen per-packet, but I see
module_get() in various block drivers and in netfilter code etc, and
some of them may be pretty bad.

Let's see how it all works out.

                       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/