linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire operation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.45acd8edbab1@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 05:21:59 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Xin Zhao <jackzxcui1989@....com>, 
 willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, 
 edumazet@...gle.com, 
 ferenc@...es.dev
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, 
 kuba@...nel.org, 
 pabeni@...hat.com, 
 horms@...nel.org, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire
 operation

Xin Zhao wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-08-17 at 21:28 +0800, Willem wrote:
> 
> > Here we cannot use hrtimer_add_expires for the same reason you gave in
> > the second version of the patch:
> > 
> > > Additionally, I think we cannot avoid using ktime_get, as the retire
> > > timeout for each block is not fixed. When there are a lot of network packets,
> > > a block can retire quickly, and if we do not re-fetch the time, the timeout
> > > duration may be set incorrectly.
> > 
> > Is that right?
> > 
> > Otherwise patch LGTM.
> 
> 
> Dear Willem,
> 
> While reviewing the code, I suddenly realized that previously I used 
> hrtimer_set_expires instead of hrtimer_forward_now to resolve the situation when
> handling the retire timer timeout while run into prb_open_block simultaneously.
> However, since there is now a distinction with the bool start variable in PATCH v4,
> it seems that we no longer need to use hrtimer_set_expires and can directly use
> hrtimer_forward_now instead. Therefore, I plan to make this change immediately and
> resend PATCH v4. Please take a look at it then.

Having a conversation in one thread that is not concluded yet and
already starting another thread makes back and forth communication
a bit difficult.

I'll take a look, but just send a v5 after 24 hrs.