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  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:	Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:54:08 +0200
From:	Jarek Poplawski <>
To:	Herbert Xu <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH take 2] pkt_sched: Fix qdisc_watchdog() vs.
	dev_deactivate() race

On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 06:48:00PM -0700, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 06:40:08PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
> >
> > My current opinion is that both operations are equally difficult.
> > With the slight advantage for ->requeue() because all the complicated
> > logic is already implemented :-)
> I'd agree with you if you haven't written the peek stuff :)
> Now that peek exists, the dequeue stuff would be a lot simpler
> than requeue because the only non-trivial logic would be in the
> leaf qdiscs.  All the complex/classful qdiscs would be trivial
> as they'd just write down the child qdisc that was peeked and
> then call dequeue on that child.

If I get it right peek + dequeue should do all current dequeue logic
plus additionally write down the child qdisc or skb (leaves) info,
plus, probably, some ifs btw., which looks like a bit of overhead,
if we consider requeuing as something exceptional. Unless we don't -
then of course something like this could be useful.

Jarek P.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists