netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/1][PKT_CLS] Avoid multiple tree locks

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: <46010641.3000009@trash.net>
Date:	Wed, 21 Mar 2007 11:17:37 +0100
From:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To:	hadi@...erus.ca
CC:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1][PKT_CLS] Avoid multiple tree locks

Patrick McHardy wrote:
> jamal wrote:
> 
>>Seems to have been around a while. IMO, mterial for 2.6.21 but not
>>stable. I have only compile-tested but it looks right(tm).
> 
> 
> 
> Its harmless since its a read lock, which can be nested. I actually
> don't see any need for qdisc_tree_lock at all, all changes and all
> walking is done under the RTNL, which is why I've removed it in
> my (upcoming) patches. I suggest to leave it as is for now so I
> don't need to change the __qdisc_lookup back to qdisc_lookup in
> 2.6.22.

Alexey just explained to me why we do need qdisc_tree_lock in private
mail. While dumping only the first skb is filled under the RTNL,
while filling further skbs we don't hold the RTNL anymore. So I will
probably have to drop that patch.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html