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
| ||
|
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2009 01:07:10 -0700 (PDT) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: dada1@...mosbay.com, shemminger@...tta.com, kaber@...sh.net, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org, jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, paulus@...ba.org, mingo@...e.hu, laijs@...fujitsu.com, jengelh@...ozas.de, r000n@...0n.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, benh@...nel.crashing.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...ymtl.ca Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu spinlock rather than RCU (v3) From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 22:40:32 -0700 > I completely agree that this RCU is absolutely -not- 2.6.30 material. ;-) I don't understand why we're writing such complicated code. Oh I see why, it's because not every arch uses the generic SMP helpers yet :-) Because if they did universally, we could solve this problem so simply, by merely sending a remote softirq to every online cpu. Once those all complete we have enough of a quiesce period, every cpu must have exited any netfilter packet processing code path they were in. And we could know they complete using an atomic counter or something. -- 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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists