[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105101531160.4023@router.home>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 15:33:31 -0500 (CDT)
From: Christoph Lameter <cl@...ux.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
cc: Vegard Nossum <vegardno@....uio.no>,
Pekka Enberg <penberg@...helsinki.fi>,
casteyde.christian@...e.fr,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org,
bugme-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Bugme-new] [Bug 33502] New: Caught 64-bit read from uninitialized
memory in __alloc_skb
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le mardi 10 mai 2011 à 14:38 -0500, Christoph Lameter a écrit :
>
> > Optimizing? You think about this as concurrency issue between multiple
> > cpus. That is fundamentally wrong. This is dealing with access to per cpu
> > data and the concurrency issues are only with code running on the *same*
> > cpu.
> >
>
> If you enable irqs, then this object can be allocated by _this_ cpu and
> given to another one.
That will cause an incrementing of the tid.
> Another cpu can free the page, forcing you to call a very expensive
> function, that might give obsolete result as soon it returns.
No the other cpu cannot free the page since the page is pinned by
the current cpu (see PageFrozen()).
> Maybe I am just tired tonight, this seems very obvious, I must miss
> something.
Yeah you are way off thinking about cpu to cpu concurrency issues that do
not apply here.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists