netdev - Re: [RFC net-next-2.6] can: replace spinlocks with mutexes

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]

Message-ID: <4DB02A7D.4010909@hartkopp.net>
Date:	Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:00:45 +0200
From:	Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Kurt Van Dijck <kurt.van.dijck@....be>,
	Urs Thuermann <urs@...ogud.escape.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC net-next-2.6] can: replace spinlocks with mutexes

On 20.04.2011 17:39, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mercredi 20 avril 2011 à 17:31 +0200, Oliver Hartkopp a écrit :
>> This patch removes spinlocks for the CAN netdevice specific receive lists.
>> The RCU-based receive lists can be modified from process context or from the
>> netdevice notifier call. As both might sleep we can safely replace the
>> spinlocks with mutexes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Oliver Hartkopp <socketcan@...tkopp.net>
>>
>> ---
> 
> But... why ?
> 
> A spinlock is faster/smaller than a mutex.
> 
> Maybe you wanted to _remove_ spinlock, since/if writer hold RTNL and
> doesnt need to exclude another writer(s) ?
> 
> Note : I did not check the RTNL assertion, you might add appropriate
> ASSERT_RTNL() calls just to be 100% safe.
> 

I played a bit with rtnl locks but ran into problems with a lock sock when
enabling all locking debug techniques. Therefore i pull back my RFC for now
and leave the locking using spinlocks as-is.

Thanks,
Oliver
--
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