netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement pattern

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: <20131009154323.GB22495@htj.dyndns.org>
Date:	Wed, 9 Oct 2013 11:43:23 -0400
From:	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
To:	Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...hat.com>
Cc:	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Ben Hutchings <bhutchings@...arflare.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
	Ralf Baechle <ralf@...ux-mips.org>,
	Michael Ellerman <michael@...erman.id.au>,
	Martin Schwidefsky <schwidefsky@...ibm.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
	Andy King <acking@...are.com>, Jon Mason <jon.mason@...el.com>,
	Matt Porter <mporter@...nel.crashing.org>,
	linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, linux-mips@...ux-mips.org,
	linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org, linux390@...ibm.com,
	linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
	linux-ide@...r.kernel.org, iss_storagedev@...com,
	linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, e1000-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	linux-driver@...gic.com,
	Solarflare linux maintainers <linux-net-drivers@...arflare.com>,
	"VMware, Inc." <pv-drivers@...are.com>, linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 00/77] Re-design MSI/MSI-X interrupts enablement
 pattern

Hello,

On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 02:57:16PM +0200, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 07, 2013 at 02:01:11PM -0400, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Hmmm... yean, the race condition could be an issue as multiple msi
> > allocation might fail even if the driver can and explicitly handle
> > multiple allocation if the quota gets reduced inbetween.
> 
> BTW, should we care about the quota getting increased inbetween?
> That would entail.. kind of pci_get_msi_limit() :), but IMHO it is
> not worth it.

I think we shouldn't.  If the resource was low during a point in time
during allocation, it's fine to base the result on that - the resource
was actually low and which answer we return is just a question of
timing and both are correct.  The only reason the existing race
condition is problematic is because it may fail even if the resource
never falls below the failure point.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun
--
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