netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: disable preemption before call smp_processor

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, 07 Aug 2010 20:37:00 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	xiaosuo@...il.com
Cc:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, therbert@...gle.com,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: disable preemption before call smp_processor_id()

From: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Date: Sat,  7 Aug 2010 17:26:02 +0800

> Although netif_rx() isn't expected to be called in process context with
> preemption enabled, it'd better handle this case. And this is why get_cpu()
> is used in the non-RPS #ifdef branch. If tree RCU is selected,
> rcu_read_lock() won't disable preemption, so preempt_disable() should be
> called explictly.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>

Applied, thanks Changli.

Paul, perhaps the comment above rcu_read_lock()'s definition should
be updated in rcupdate.h?  It says blocking is not allowed inside
of a read side critical section, but obviously with tree-rcu that
is not the case.

Either we should add a mention of tree-rcu's semantics or just remote
this part of the comment altogether.
--
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