netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: use per-cpu recursive lock (v11)

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]

Message-ID: <20090421180225.GA26237@elte.hu>
Date:	Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:02:25 +0200
From:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc:	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>,
	Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, kaber@...sh.net,
	jeff.chua.linux@...il.com, 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 recursive lock (v11)


* Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:

> PS: Ingo, why do the *_bh() functions in kernel/spinlock.c do 
> _both_ a "local_bh_disable()" and a "preempt_disable()"? BH 
> disable should disable preemption too, no? Or am I confused? In 
> which case we need that in the above rdlock_bh too.

i think there might be (are?) uses of:

	spin_lock_bh(&some->lock);
	...
	spin_unlock(&some->lock);
	...
	local_bh_enable();

So we have to have two preemption control levels for that, as 
there's no knowledge at the spin_lock_bh() place whether it will be 
followed by a spin_unlock_bh() [in which case it would be safe to do 
SOFTIRQ_OFFSET only] - or by a spin_unlock() + local_bh_enable() 
pair..

[ That locking pattrn even makes a certain amount of sense: keep the 
  lock held for a short amount of time - then weaken locking to bh 
  context exclusion only. ]

What we could do is an optimization to do a compound increase the 
preempt count by SOFTIRQ_OFFSET+1 - instead of a local_bh_disable() 
+ preempt_disable()? Symmetrically we could do a compound decrease 
in the unlock case.

It might even be called: local_bh_preempt_disable() or so?

	Ingo
--
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