[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <113516eb-8615-4468-0127-1a491d34c83c@colorfullife.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2017 20:45:59 +0200
From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
oleg@...hat.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, mingo@...hat.com,
dave@...olabs.net, tj@...nel.org, arnd@...db.de,
linux-arch@...r.kernel.org, will.deacon@....com,
peterz@...radead.org, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
parri.andrea@...il.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
stable@...r.kernel.org, Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@...cle.com>,
Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/9] net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core: Fix
net_conntrack_lock()
Hi Paul,
On 07/06/2017 01:31 AM, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> From: Manfred Spraul <manfred@...orfullife.com>
>
> As we want to remove spin_unlock_wait() and replace it with explicit
> spin_lock()/spin_unlock() calls, we can use this to simplify the
> locking.
>
> In addition:
> - Reading nf_conntrack_locks_all needs ACQUIRE memory ordering.
> - The new code avoids the backwards loop.
>
> Only slightly tested, I did not manage to trigger calls to
> nf_conntrack_all_lock().
If you want:
Attached would be V2, with adapted comments.
--
Manfred
View attachment "0001-net-netfilter-nf_conntrack_core-Fix-net_conntrack_lo.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (3706 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists