netdev - Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

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: <1181257074.4071.58.camel@localhost>
Date:	Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:57:54 -0400
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	"Kok, Auke" <auke-jan.h.kok@...el.com>
Cc:	Jeff Garzik <jeff@...zik.org>, David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	kaber@...sh.net, peter.p.waskiewicz.jr@...el.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jesse Brandeburg <jesse.brandeburg@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NET: Multiqueue network device support.

On Thu, 2007-07-06 at 15:30 -0700, Kok, Auke wrote:

> our rx interrupt/clean can trigger tx cleans, reaching the same code...

I see that - What i am saying is tx_lock never protects that.
Am i mistaken? i.e
CPU0 entering tx and and CPU1 entering rx interupt/clean can not be
blocked from each other simply by tp->tx_lock because tp->tx_lock only
runs on CPU0. 
Is it a bug then?

cheers,
jamal

-
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