netdev - Re: [PATCH] ipv4: synchronize bind() with RTM

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: <20101021.040319.191412436.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Thu, 21 Oct 2010 04:03:19 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	timo.teras@....fi
Cc:	eric.dumazet@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv4: synchronize bind() with RTM_NEWADDR notifications

From: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:58:08 +0300

> On 10/21/2010 01:50 PM, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Timo Teräs <timo.teras@....fi>
>> Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:41:37 +0300
>> 
>>> Is inet_bind() called from non-userland context? If yes, then this is a
>>> bad idea. Otherwise I don't think it's that hot path...
>> 
>> It is.
> 
> Yet, almost immediately after that there is lock_sock() which can also
> sleep. How does that work then?

RTNL interlocks globally with a heavy primitive, a mutex, lock_sock()
grabs a spinlcok which is local to the socket's context.

So if we have 100,000 sockets binding we'll suck with you're change
whereas the lock_sock() does not cause that problem.

Is this so difficult for you to comprehend?
--
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