netdev - Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: make feature-rx-notify mandatory

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:	Thu, 23 Oct 2014 12:52:29 +0100
From:	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
To:	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
CC:	<netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xen-netback: make feature-rx-notify mandatory

On 23/10/14 12:44, Wei Liu wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:37:54PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 23/10/14 12:32, Wei Liu wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 12:16:29PM +0100, Wei Liu wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 02:08:53PM +0100, David Vrabel wrote:
>>>>> Frontends that do not provide feature-rx-notify may stall because
>>>>> netback depends on the notification from frontend to wake the guest Rx
>>>>> thread (even if can_queue is false).
>>>>>
>>>>> This could be fixed but feature-rx-notify was introduced in 2006 and I
>>>>> am not aware of any frontends that do not implement this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: David Vrabel <david.vrabel@...rix.com>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@...rix.com>
>>>
>>> While I can understand this patch by itself, can you elaborate a little
>>> bit on how it affects later patches? Because what I'm thinking is that
>>> this patch is not for stable while other two should go to stable.
>>
>> >From the cover letter:
>>
>> "The first patch is a prerequite.  Removing support for frontends with
>> feature-rx-notify makes it easier to reason about the correctness of
>> netback since it no longer has to support this outdated and broken
>> mode."
>>
> 
> I saw that.
> 
> I think you should make it a little bit clearer.

I'm not sure how I can make this any clearer.  Perhaps you should wander
over to my desk to discuss this in person?

> The queue is not guaranteed to stop if we keep this feature.
> 
>> The other patches do not meet the stable kernel requirements (they're
>> too long one thing).
>>
> 
> Does length matter? I surely had written long patch for stable.

>From Documentation/stable_kernel_rules.txt:

"- It cannot be bigger than 100 lines, with context."

David
--
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