netdev - Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH v6 2/7 RFC] TCPCT part 1b: generate Responder Cookie

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:	Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:04:17 -0800
From:	Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To:	William Allen Simpson <william.allen.simpson@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH v6 2/7 RFC] TCPCT part 1b: generate
 Responder Cookie

On Fri, 2009-11-13 at 09:51 -0500, William Allen Simpson wrote:
> Since Eric says it can be inside the locked path, I can do away with
> that entirely, and just use the result (bakery) pointer itself.  Saves a
> memcpy, too.
> Here's my revised attempt (untested).  Any other technical corrections?

Just one, thanks for persisting.

> +	if (unlikely(time_after_eq(jiffy, tcp_secret_generating->expires))) {
> +		spin_lock_bh(&tcp_secret_locker);
> +		if (!time_after_eq(jiffy, tcp_secret_generating->expires)) {
[]
> +			spin_unlock_bh(&tcp_secret_locker);
> +		} else {
[]
> +			spin_unlock_bh(&tcp_secret_locker);
[removed comments]
> +		}

perhaps deleting the two unlocks above and moving it
to the same indent level here is trivially better.

		spin_unlock_bh(&tcp_secret_locker);


--
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