netdev - Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: conntrack: remove the central spinlock

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]

Message-ID: <1368079301.13473.88.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date:	Wed, 08 May 2013 23:01:41 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH nf-next] netfilter: conntrack: remove the central
 spinlock

On Thu, 2013-05-09 at 05:43 +0000, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 at 03:04 GMT, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> >  
> > +#if 0
> > +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(nf_conntrack_locks); i++)
> > +		arch_spin_lock_init(&nf_conntrack_locks[i]);
> > +#endif
> > +
> 
> Is this intentional?

What do you think ?

Apparently arch_spin_lock_init() does not exist (but for ia64)

kernel/lglock.c simply relies on storage being cleared.

nf_conntrack_locks[] being cleared, we do not have to init it.

But I do not really like this.


--
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