linux-kernel - RE: [EXT] [PATCH 1/2] mwifiex: dispatch/rotate from reorder table atomically

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:   Wed, 5 Jun 2019 09:15:53 +0000
From:   Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>
To:     Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Nishant Sarmukadam <nishants@...vell.com>,
        Amitkumar Karwar <amitkarwar@...il.com>,
        Xinming Hu <huxinming820@...il.com>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org" <linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Doug Anderson" <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: RE: [EXT] [PATCH 1/2] mwifiex: dispatch/rotate from reorder table
 atomically

Hi Brian,

> (1) iterating / clearing the mwifiex reordering table
> (2) dispatching received packets to upper layers
> 
> This makes it much harder to make lock recursion mistakes, as these two
> steps no longer need to hold the same locks.

Yes, this is clean;

> 
> Testing: I've played with a variety of stress tests, including download stress
> tests on the same APs which caught regressions with commit
> 5188d5453bc9 ("mwifiex: restructure rx_reorder_tbl_lock usage"). I've
> primarily tested on Marvell 8997 / PCIe, although I've given 8897 / SDIO a
> quick spin as well.
> 

Thanks a lot for this; We will also run the tests locally; But, I find the change is good;

Acked-by: Ganapathi Bhat <gbhat@...vell.com>

Regards,
Ganapathi