netdev - Re: [PATCH v2] l2tp: use per-cpu variables for u64

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]

Date:	Wed, 27 Jun 2012 22:39:01 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Rick Jones <rick.jones2@...com>
Cc:	Tom Parkin <tparkin@...alix.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	David.Laight@...LAB.COM, James Chapman <jchapman@...alix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] l2tp: use per-cpu variables for u64_stats updates

On Wed, 2012-06-27 at 13:21 -0700, Rick Jones wrote:

> It is a question of the speed of the communications more than the 
> bitness of the processor no?

Why ?

In 2012 or 2013, 64bits kernels are the norm, and 32bit the exception.

Should we add complex code to l2tp just for being able to run it on
32bit kernels with 64bit stats ?

Considering this code is buggy at the v1 & v2, I am really wondering.

All sane SNMP applications are ready to cope with 32bits counters
wrapping.

Machines that could wrap the 32bit counter several times per second are
probably running on 64bit kernels.

Also percpu stats are overkill unless a device is really meant to be
used in // by many cpus.

--
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