netdev - Re: Multicast packet loss

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <20090308.194922.267426196.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Sun, 08 Mar 2009 19:49:22 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	dada1@...mosbay.com
Cc:	kchang@...enacr.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	cl@...ux-foundation.org, bmb@...enacr.com
Subject: Re: Multicast packet loss

From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Date: Sun, 08 Mar 2009 17:46:13 +0100

> +	if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep)) {
> +		if (in_softirq()) {
> +			if (!softirq_del(&sk->sk_del, sock_readable_defer))
> +				goto unlock;
> +			return;
> +		}

This is interesting.

I think you should make softirq_del() more flexible.  Make it the
socket's job to make sure it doesn't try to defer different
functions, and put the onus on locking there as well.

The cmpxchg() and all of this checking is just wasted work.

I'd really like to get rid of that callback lock too, then we'd
really be in business. :-)

--
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