netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/5] netfilter: nft_rbtree: no need for spinlock from set destroy path

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: <1411489777.15395.1.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:29:37 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>
Cc:	netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] netfilter: nft_rbtree: no need for spinlock from
 set destroy path

On Tue, 2014-09-23 at 18:10 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote:

> Actually, I could add to nft_data a pointer in the union area, but I'm
> not very confortable with adding it for this specific case. At this
> moment we're releasing this from rcu_callback which is "hiding" the
> deletion time from the netlink interface.
> 
> But I'll keep this back in my head if we later on have some pointer
> candidate to be reused in a nice way.
> 
> I'll send a patch to make the rb_first()/rb_next() conversion though.

Ah, forget what I said, its actually slower to build a list by 7%, I had
an error in my test.

So the rb_first() thing is the easy and fast way.

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