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, 21 May 2014 12:45:06 +0800
From:	Jason Wang <>
To:	Eric Dumazet <>
CC:	Xi Wang <>, "David S. Miller" <>,, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <>,
	Maxim Krasnyansky <>,
	Neal Cardwell <>,
	Eric Dumazet <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net-tun: restructure tun_do_read for better sleep/wakeup

On 05/20/2014 09:59 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 14:03 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> On 05/20/2014 01:11 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2014-05-20 at 12:44 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>>>> On 05/19/2014 10:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>>>> About the sk_data_ready() and wake_up_all(), you missed the whole part
>>>>> of the patch I think.
>>>>> Check how sock_def_readable() does everything properly and efficiently,
>>>>> including the async part.
>>>> But this changes (sk_data_ready()) has nothing related to switching to
>>>> use __skb_recv_datagram()
>>> This is totally related.
>>> I think you did not yet understood this patch
>> Sorry for being unclear, but I think you misunderstand my meaning.
>>> Compare wake_up_all() and sk_data_ready() speeds, you'll be surprised.
>>> You should ask to yourself : Why do we use wq_has_sleeper() in
>>> networking stacks ?
>> See my first reply, I don't have objection that uses sk_data_ready() in
>> tun_net_xmit(). My only concern is using sk_data_ready() in
>> tun_detach_all():
>> - It was only called during tun destroying, so I believe we don't care
>> about the performance in this condition.
> Its there for symmetry, and so far our tests just work.
> Have you run into any problems ?

Nope, I tested this patch and it works well.
>> - sk_data_ready() was usually called when there's something new to be
>> processed which is not case in tun_detach_all()
> sk_data_ready() will wakeup waiters exactly like wake_up_all()
> We do not use wake_up_all() in net/ipv4 & net/ipv6, have you seen any
> bug because of this ?
> wake_up_all() is a lazy call, when an author cannot be careful enough to
> use a better way.

I haven't. I thought there should be some reason that the author use
wake_up_all() here. But I'm now convinced that it's safe to do the change.
> Your resistance shows that you think the _existing_ code might be racy.
> Care to elaborate instead ?

I'm asking since I want to make sure nothing breaks and I think some of
changes are unrelated.
>> - Not sure it was a problem but sock_def_readable() will not wake up
>> uninterruptible task during tun destroying.
> Thats irrelevant. We are supposed to unblock threads that are waiting on
> the tun device, not threads doing uninterruptible stuff somewhere else
> in the kernel.
> Eventually they will later reach tun device and will detect device is
> gone/dismantled.

>> - If we make sock_fasync() works for tun in the future, it may send
>> SIGIO to user process during tun destroying which is not expected.
> SOCK_FASYNC is not set on the tun socket.
> sk_wake_async() does nothing in this case. As for 99.9999 % of TCP
> sockets and nobody ever noticed this code path was almost dead.

I see and thanks for your time. I don't have concern with this patch any
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists