netdev - Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs. dev

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:	Thu, 11 Sep 2008 04:42:55 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	herbert@...dor.apana.org.au
Cc:	jarkao2@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs.
 dev_deactivate() race

From: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2008 21:00:35 +1000

> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 03:49:55AM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > 
> > Well some kind of check has to be there.
> > 
> > I _did_ remove it during my initial implementation, and that
> > turned into a reported performance regression.
> 
> I see.  How about looking at the queue that the head-of-qdisc
> packet maps to? That should be fairly cheap to compute.

This gets us back to the whole qdisc->ops->peek() discussion :)

And we don't have the qdisc lock here, taking it is undesirable,
and if we do take it we have to transfer that lock down into
__qdisc_run() which means adjusting all the other __qdisc_run()
callers.

It's very clumsy at best.

I therefore don't think it's wise peeking into the qdisc here.

But I do realize we have to do something about this, hmmm...
--
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