netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 6 Apr 2009 10:25:52 -0700
From:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To:	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Cc:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: finer grained nf_conn locking

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:32:54 +0200 (CEST)
Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de> wrote:

> 
> On Monday 2009-04-06 14:07, Patrick McHardy wrote:
> >>>
> >>> if LOCKDEP is on, size of a spinlock is 64 bytes on x86_64.
> >>> Adding a spinlock on each nf_conn would be too expensive. In this
> >>> case, an array of spinlock is a good compromise, as done in
> >>> IP route cache, tcp ehash, ...
> >>
> >> IMO having different locking based on lockdep and architecture is an
> >> invitation
> >> to future obscure problems. Perhaps some other locking method or shrinking
> >> ct entry would be better.
> >
> > I agree. Do people enable lockdep on production machines?
> 
> They do not.[1]
> 
> 
> [1] http://git.opensuse.org/?p=people/jblunck/kernel-source.git;a=blob;f=config/x86_64/default;hb=SL111_BRANCH

IMHO If they enable lockdep, they can expect that the cost is non-zero.
--
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