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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2020 15:41:09 +0200 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> To: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-rt-users <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Carsten Emde <C.Emde@...dl.org>, John Kacur <jkacur@...hat.com>, Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>, Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>, "Srivatsa S. Bhat" <srivatsa@...il.mit.edu> Subject: Re: Question on 5.4.55 merge into 5.4-rt On 2020-08-14 18:54:21 [-0400], Steven Rostedt wrote: > > When merging 5.4.55 into 5.4-rt I hit the following conflict: … > > Where we are doing something slightly different. Placing the skb on the > sd->tofree_queue and raising NET_RX_SOFTIQ instead. > > Now that the vanilla stable 5.4 kernel doesn't call kfree_skb() from > irqs_disabled, can I safely revert this entire change? Not if you mean dropping skbufhead-raw-lock.patch. We can drop `tofree_queue' and everything related to it. We need to keep the `raw_lock' and the `rps_lock()' hunks for `sd->input_pkt_queue'. The other queue, `sd->process_queue', is protected by local_bh_disable() so these hunks can be dropped in the more recent RT versions with the re-written softirq code (v5.0.19-rt10+). > Is it safe to call kfree_skb() from local_bh_disable()? of course it is. > I'm assuming it is, but just want to clarify. I'll be continuing > merging latest stable (with this revert), but please yell if you think > it will break? > > Thanks! > > -- Steve Sebastian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists