[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130924152858.GB1527@order.stressinduktion.org>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 17:28:58 +0200
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Tom Herbert <therbert@...gle.com>, davem@...emloft.net,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, jesse.brandeburg@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: net_secret should not depend on TCP
On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 08:22:27AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2013-09-24 at 17:13 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 06:19:57AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > -void net_secret_init(void)
> > > +static u32 net_secret[NET_SECRET_SIZE] ____cacheline_aligned;
> > > +
> > > +static void net_secret_init(void)
> > > {
> > > - get_random_bytes(net_secret, sizeof(net_secret));
> > > + u32 tmp;
> > > + int i;
> > > +
> > > + if (likely(net_secret[0]))
> > > + return;
> > > +
> > > + for (i = NET_SECRET_SIZE; i > 0;) {
> > > + do {
> > > + get_random_bytes(&tmp, sizeof(tmp));
> > > + } while (!tmp);
> >
> > I am afraid we can block here on embedded systems in an atomic section? Is
> > this actually an issue? It does get called in a spin_lock_h.
>
> I do not see issues : get_random_bytes() is irq safe.
But couldn't it be that get_random_bytes always returns 0 and we won't make
any progress here. Does the reseed happen from irq context or from softirqs? I
always thought it would be from a softirq (which could be blocked).
Thanks,
Hannes
--
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists