netdev - Re: mac80211: NOHZ: local_softirq

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]

Date:	Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:41:12 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:	Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
CC:	Kalle Valo <kalle.valo@....fi>, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	"John W. Linville" <linville@...driver.com>
Subject: Re: mac80211: NOHZ: local_softirq_pending 08

Michael Buesch wrote:

>> As there are several users in the kernel do exact this test and call the
>> appropriate netif_rx() function, i would suggest to create a static inline
>> function:
>>
>> static inline int netif_rx_ti(struct sk_buff *skb)
>> {
>> 	if (in_interrupt())
>> 		return netif_rx(skb);
>> 	return netif_rx_ni(skb);
>> }
>>
>> ('ti' for test in_interrupt())
>>
>> in include/linux/netdevice.h
>>
>> What do you think about that?
> 
> Yeah, I'm fine with that.
> 

Hi Michael,

i cooked a patch that introduces netif_rx_ti() and fixes up the problems in
mac80211 and the CAN subsystem.

Currently i'm pondering whether netif_rx_ti() is needed in all cases or if
there are code sections that'll never be executed from irq-context.

In theses cases netif_rx_ni() should be prefered to netif_rx_ti() to prevent
the obsolete check ...

Is there any of your changes that should better use netif_rx_ni() ?

Regards,
Oliver

View attachment "net-NOHZ-local_softirq_pending-08.patch" of type "text/x-patch" (3613 bytes)