netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV

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]

Date:	Wed, 12 Mar 2014 18:49:31 +0000
From:	Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
To:	Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@...rix.com>,
	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC:	<wei.liu2@...rix.com>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<jonathan.davies@...rix.com>, <andrew.bennieston@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v7 0/9] xen-netback: TX grant mapping with SKBTX_DEV_ZEROCOPY
 instead of copy

On 12/03/14 15:40, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-03-08 at 18:57 -0500, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Zoltan Kiss <zoltan.kiss@...rix.com>
>> Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 14:37:50 +0000
>>
>>> Maybe you mixed up mine with that? But that's also not eligible to be
>>> applied yet.
>>
>> I can always revert the series if there are major objections.
>
> Zoltan -- does this patch series suffer from/expose the confusion
> regarding RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS which we are discussing
> separately on xen-devel? If the answer is yes then I think this series
> should be reverted for the time being because there seems to be some
> fairly fundamental questions about the semantics of that macro.
I haven't seen it causing any issue during my testing, although it went 
through several XenRT nighlies. That topic 
("RING_HAS_UNCONSUMED_REQUESTS oddness" on xen-devel) came from 
theoretical grounds. One outcome of it is that we should move that 
napi_schedule from the callback to the end of the dealloc thread to be 
on the safe side. I can post a short patch for that.

>
> If the answer is no then I will endeavour to review this version of the
> series ASAP (hopefully tomorrow) and determine if I have any other major
> objections which would warrant a revert.
>
> Ian.
>

--
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