netdev - Re: [PATCH 2/3] rhashtable-test: retry insert operations in threads

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: <20150831110012.GO20760@orbit.nwl.cc>
Date:	Mon, 31 Aug 2015 13:00:12 +0200
From:	Phil Sutter <phil@....cc>
To:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc:	tgraf@...g.ch, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, fengguang.wu@...el.com,
	wfg@...ux.intel.com, lkp@...org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] rhashtable-test: retry insert operations in threads

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 03:47:17PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Phil Sutter <phil@....cc> wrote:
> >
> > Should we introduce a new field to struct rhashtable to track the
> > internal state? This might allow to clean up some rather obscure tests,
> > e.g. whether a table resize is in progress or not.
> 
> Why would we want to do that? The deferred expansion is done
> on a best effort basis so its failure has nothing to do with
> the failure of a subsequent insertion.

The variable would be used to track if the worker has failed to allocate
memory in background.

Since the failing insertion will be retried, subsequent inserts are not
necessary unrelated.

> The insertion must have tried its own last-ditch synchronous
> expansion and only fail if that fails.

Who do you mean with "the insertion"? The user or the API?

Cheers, Phil
--
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