netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] net: fix sleeping while atomic problem in sock mem

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: <4EEB1807.1000308@parallels.com>
Date:	Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:05:59 +0400
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...allels.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	<davem@...emloft.net>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>, <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	<cgroups@...r.kernel.org>, Stephen Rothwell <sfr@...b.auug.org.au>,
	Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@...otime.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net: fix sleeping while atomic problem in sock mem_cgroup.

On 12/16/2011 02:04 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Le vendredi 16 décembre 2011 à 13:53 +0400, Glauber Costa a écrit :
>> On 12/16/2011 01:31 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> Le vendredi 16 décembre 2011 à 13:09 +0400, Glauber Costa a écrit :
>>>> Since we can't scan the proto_list to initialize sock cgroups, as it
>>>> holds a rwlock, and we also want to keep the code generic enough to
>>>> avoid calling the initialization functions of protocols directly,
>>>> I propose we keep the interested parties in a separate list. This list
>>>> is protected by a mutex so we can sleep and do the necessary allocations.
>>>>
>>>> Also fixes a reference problem found by Randy Dunlap's randconfig.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa<glommer@...allels.com>
>>>> CC: Hiroyouki Kamezawa<kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>
>>>> CC: David S. Miller<davem@...emloft.net>
>>>> CC: Eric Dumazet<eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>>>> CC: Stephen Rothwell<sfr@...b.auug.org.au>
>>>> CC: Randy Dunlap<rdunlap@...otime.net>
>>>> ---
>>>
>>> Sorry to come late, but why dont we convert proto_list_lock to a mutex ?
>>
>> I didn't suggest this, as I imagined there could be some performance
>> implications to be drawn from it that may not be obvious to me.
>>
>> But if it is okay with you net guys, it is certainly okay with me as well.
>
> This 'lock' is not performance sensitive, its very seldom taken.
>
> If we really wanted to be fast, it would not be a rwlock anymore ;)
>
> "cat /proc/net/protocols" could eventually use RCU locking if we want
> parallelism. (I dont think its needed)
>

Well, in this case, I myself think this is a better solution. Do you 
want to push the patch yourself, or should I do it ?


--
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