netdev - Re: [RFC Patch net-next 4/4] net_sched: make ingress qdisc lockless

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: <CAM_iQpUj9kg=15K3yyOWuMEaxWQC2TUStAMjHrn+ixbGyYHK0Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Thu, 9 Jan 2014 16:30:12 -0800
From:	Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC Patch net-next 4/4] net_sched: make ingress qdisc lockless

On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 4:21 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>
>
> Really, you'll have to explain in the changelog why you think this is
> safe, because I really do not see how this can be valid.
>
> I think I already said it was not safe at all...
>
> You could try a multiqueue NIC for some interesting effects.
>

There is only one ingress queue, that is dev->ingress_queue, right?

And since on ingress, the only possible qdisc is sch_ingress,
looking at ingress_enqueue(), I don't see anything so dangerous.

As I said in the cover letter, I may still miss something in the qdisc
layer, but doesn't look like related with multiqueue. Mind to be more
specific?
--
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