netdev - Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] tun: don't require serialization lock on tx

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: <1460554028.10638.18.camel@edumazet-glaptop3.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:	Wed, 13 Apr 2016 06:27:08 -0700
From:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To:	"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
Cc:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
	Greg Kurz <gkurz@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] tun: don't require serialization lock on tx

     I. On Wed, 2016-04-13 at 15:57 +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:

> Fine, but what's the AF_PACKET duplication that Herbert Xu
> reported with NETIF_F_LLTX? Does anyone remember?

Really a lot of virtual drivers use NETIF_F_LLTX these days.

Duplication is more likely to happen with a qdisc, when a packet is
requeued if a driver returns NETDEV_TX_BUSY