netdev - Re: [PATCH net-2.6] pkt_sched: gen

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: <AANLkTik6xx0cxZKezU31K4vYg4Rz0o7ndmN4D9vYSCKX@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 8 Jun 2010 13:20:13 +0800
From:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>,
	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-2.6] pkt_sched: gen_estimator: add a new lock

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 12:58 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le mardi 08 juin 2010 à 09:00 +0800, Changli Gao a écrit :
>
>> and I think gen_replace_estimator is expected to be an atomic operation.
>>
>> And gen_estimator_active() is also assumed to be called with RTNL locked.
>>
>
> My patch fixes a bug of new/kill operators, regardless of RTNL being
> held or not. Its should be small enough to be included in linux-2.6.35.
>
> If what you say is right, all gen_replace_estimator() /
> gen_estimator_active() callers should still holds RTNL.
> I didnt change this part.
> If you believe one caller doesnt hold RTNL, please submit another patch.
>
> Then, in net-next-2.6, we can probably cleanup this to remove RTNL
> requirement if possible for gen_replace_estimator() /
> gen_estimator_active()
>
> Yes, it sounds a bit difficult (three patches instead of a single one),
> but this is the how things should be done, step by step.
>

IMO, this bug should be fixed by adding rtnl_lock to xt_RATEEST.c.
Killing rtnl should be done in separated patches. They are different
things. Your patch introduces another locks, and it is extra overhead
for other users.

-- 
Regards,
Changli Gao(xiaosuo@...il.com)
--
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