netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/2] netfilter: get rid of atomic ops in fast path

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: <1300647963.2831.291.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date:	Sun, 20 Mar 2011 20:06:03 +0100
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Cc:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Netfilter Development Mailinglist 
	<netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ozas.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] netfilter: get rid of atomic ops in fast path

Le dimanche 20 mars 2011 à 15:41 +0100, Patrick McHardy a écrit :
> Am 18.03.2011 18:07, schrieb Eric Dumazet:
> > We currently use a percpu spinlock to 'protect' rule bytes/packets
> > counters, after various attempts to use RCU instead.
> > 
> > Lately we added a seqlock so that get_counters() can run without
> > blocking BH or 'writers'. But we really use the seqcount in it.
> > 
> > Spinlock itself is only locked by the current/owner cpu, so we can
> > remove it completely.
> > 
> > This cleanups api, using correct 'writer' vs 'reader' semantic.
> > 
> > At replace time, the get_counters() call makes sure all cpus are done
> > using the old table.
> 
> I think this will have to wait until net-next opens up again since
> its not a bugfix.

Sure :)


--
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