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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:58:02 +0200
From:	Eric Dumazet <>
To:	David Held <>
Cc:	David Miller <>,,
	Willem de Bruijn <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 1/2] udp: Simplify __udp*_lib_mcast_deliver.

On Tue, 2014-07-15 at 21:53 -0400, David Held wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 8:14 PM, David Miller <> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think you are changing the logic of the loop in the edge case.
> >
> > If we have exactly ARRAY_SIZE(stack) sockets to process, the old code
> > performs the flush_stack() outside of the hslot->lock, but with your
> > change we'll do it inside the lock.
> >
> > The tradeoff here is reducing hslot->lock hold times vs. avoiding
> > taking a hold on all the sockets in the stack[] array.
> >
> > I just wanted to point this out and make sure you are aware of and
> > are ok with this.
> The followup patch makes it so we always take a hold on the sockets
> anyway (it makes things simpler and only changes things for the too
> large array case), so might as well reduce the lock time for the
> exactly ARRAY_SIZE case.

Note that my initial motivation for this array was to convert the
multicast lookup into a RCU one, but I never finished this.

If we hold a spinlock, there is no need for this array in the first

If we dont hole a spinlock, we are forced to temporarily store the
sockets into the array, just in case we restart the lookup because we
are directed into another chain.

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