netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] bonding: get rid of bond->lock

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:51:39 -0700 (PDT)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	nikolay@...hat.com
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, vfalico@...il.com, j.vosburgh@...il.com,
	andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/6] bonding: get rid of bond->lock

From: Nikolay Aleksandrov <nikolay@...hat.com>
Date: Sat,  6 Sep 2014 15:59:25 +0200

> This patch-set removes the last users of bond->lock and converts the places
> that needed it for sync to use curr_slave_lock or RCU as appropriate.
> I've run this with lockdep and have stress-tested it via loading/unloading
> and enslaving/releasing in parallel while outputting bond's proc, I didn't
> see any issues. Please pay special attention to the procfs change, I've
> done about an hour of stress-testing on it and have checked that the event
> that causes the bonding to delete its proc entry (NETDEV_UNREGISTER) is
> called before ndo_uninit() and the freeing of the dev so any readers will
> sync with that. Also ran sparse checks and there were no splats.
> 
> Changes from the RFC:
>  use RCU in procfs instead of RTNL since RTNL might lead to a deadlock with
>  unloading and also is much slower. The bond destruction syncs with proc
>  via the proc locks. There's one new patch that converts primary_slave to
>  use RCU as it was necessary to fix a longstanding bugs in sysfs and
>  procfs and to make it easy to migrate bond's procfs to RCU. And of course
>  rebased on top of net-next current.
> 
> This is the first patch-set in a series that should simplify the bond's
> locking requirements and will make it easier to define the locking
> conditions necessary for the various paths. The goal is to rely on RTNL
> and rcu alone, an extra lock would be needed in a few special cases that
> would be documented very well.

You are a brave person playing with bond locking, I must say :)

Series applied, thanks.
--
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