[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180718115919.GB4949@bombadil.infradead.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 04:59:19 -0700
From: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
To: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc: Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
NetFilter <netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux-Next Mailing List <linux-next@...r.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Varsha Rao <rvarsha016@...il.com>
Subject: Re: linux-next: build failure after merge of the ida tree
On Wed, Jul 18, 2018 at 11:24:26AM +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:
> I see, we have no more lockless API for IDA anymore :-(. In our case,
> we were already protected by the the nfnl_lock mutex, which it was
> sufficient to ensure non-concurrent access to IDA structures.
You're actually the first user for whom this is true. For every other
user, the requirement to manage their own spinlock was a pain.
> Unless I'm missing anything, the new API forces use to the spinlock
> call with disabled irq for each time we update something from the
> netfilter netlink interface, so that's a no-go for us.
I can't believe that's a serious problem for you, though. You're calling
sscanf(), this can't possibly be a performance path.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists