linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] IB/core: Make ib_mad_client

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: <1524196555.11756.30.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 19 Apr 2018 23:55:55 -0400
From:   Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
To:     Håkon Bugge <Haakon.Bugge@...cle.com>,
        Don Hiatt <don.hiatt@...el.com>,
        Dasaratharaman Chandramouli 
        <dasaratharaman.chandramouli@...el.com>,
        Ira Weiny <ira.weiny@...el.com>,
        Sean Hefty <sean.hefty@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] IB/core: Make ib_mad_client_id atomic

On Wed, 2018-04-18 at 16:24 +0200, Håkon Bugge wrote:
> Two kernel threads may get the same value for agent.hi_tid, if the
> agents are registered for different ports. As of now, this works, as
> the agent list is per port.
> 
> It is however confusing and not future robust. Hence, making it
> atomic.
> 

People sometimes underestimate the performance penalty of atomic ops. 
Every atomic op is the equivalent of a spin_lock/spin_unlock pair.  This
is why two atomics are worse than taking a spin_lock, doing what you
have to do, and releasing the spin_lock.  Is this really what you want
for a "confusing, let's make it robust" issue?

-- 
Doug Ledford <dledford@...hat.com>
    GPG KeyID: B826A3330E572FDD
    Key fingerprint = AE6B 1BDA 122B 23B4 265B  1274 B826 A333 0E57 2FDD
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (834 bytes)