netdev - Re: tun: Use netif_receive_skb instead of netif

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: <20100519082128.GB24331@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 19 May 2010 18:21:28 +1000
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Thomas Graf <tgraf@...hat.com>,
	Neil Horman <nhorman@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: tun: Use netif_receive_skb instead of netif_rx

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 10:18:09AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 19 mai 2010 à 10:09 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> 
> > Another concern I have is about RPS.
> > 
> > netif_receive_skb() must be called from process_backlog() context, or
> > there is no guarantee the IPI will be sent if this skb is enqueued for
> > another cpu.
> 
> Hmm, I just checked again, and this is wrong.
> 
> In case we enqueue skb on a remote cpu backlog, we also
> do __raise_softirq_irqoff(NET_RX_SOFTIRQ); so the IPI will be done
> later.

OK your concern is only with the stack usage, right?

Thanks,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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