netdev - Re: [PATCH] netfilter: remove an atomic bit operation

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 21 Nov 2010 07:38:05 +0800
From:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	tim.gardner@...onical.com, Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] netfilter: remove an atomic bit operation

On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 12:50 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Le samedi 20 novembre 2010 à 09:03 -0700, Tim Gardner a écrit :
>
>> NAK, set_bit() takes a bit number, not a mask. That is, assuming you can
>> get away with a non-atomic operation on this field. I'll defer to
>> Patrick on that.
>>
>> I think you have to use IPS_CONFIRMED instead, e.g.,
>>
>>       ct->status |= IPS_CONFIRMED;
>>
>
> Or
>
>        __set_bit(IPS_CONFIRMED_BIT, &ct->status);
>
>
> set_bit() is atomic, while __set_bit() is not
>

Oh, you are right. Thanks. My a previous patch accepted by Patrick has
the same problem.

-- 
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