netdev - Re: [PATCH 3/3] ifb: move tq from ifb

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1291475366.2159.48.camel@mojatatu>
Date:	Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:09:26 -0500
From:	jamal <hadi@...erus.ca>
To:	Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
Cc:	Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ifb: move tq from ifb_private

On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 23:01 +0800, Changli Gao wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 4, 2010 at 10:55 PM, jamal <hadi@...erus.ca> wrote:
> > On Sat, 2010-12-04 at 22:45 +0800, Changli Gao wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If we breaks the loop when there are still skbs in tq and no skb in
> >> rq, the skbs will be left in txq until new skbs are enqueued into rq.
> >> In rare cases, no new skb is queued, then these skbs will stay in rq
> >> forever.
> >
> > So should we goto resched?
> >
> 
> Only if we can't lock the txq or rq isn't empty, we goto resched. So
> it is a bug.

And to be explicit: Yes, meant to say there is a bug if we break out 
in the scenario you described above - the fix is to jump to resched.
Why do we need the lock?

cheers,
jamal

--
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