netdev - Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

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: <20160229.121605.1302971583714293773.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:	Mon, 29 Feb 2016 12:16:05 -0500 (EST)
From:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:	peter@...leysoftware.com
Cc:	umgwanakikbuti@...il.com, romieu@...zoreil.com,
	edumazet@...gle.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	dmaengine@...r.kernel.org, john.ogness@...utronix.de,
	bigeasy@...utronix.de, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
	tglx@...utronix.de
Subject: Re: Softirq priority inversion from "softirq: reduce latencies"

From: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Feb 2016 07:03:11 -0800

> However, I'm pointing out that Eric's sledgehammer approach to fixing
> the NET_RX softirq bug is having significant side-effects in other
> subsystems.

Either your hardware can handle arbitrary latencies and thus can use
softirqs for event completion successfully, or it can't.

You, my friend, are the one using the sledgehammer.