| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <576BC3A5.3070509@mojatatu.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 07:10:29 -0400 From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org Cc: khoroshilov@...ras.ru Subject: Re: [Patch net 1/2] act_ife: only acquire tcf_lock for existing actions On 16-06-20 04:37 PM, Cong Wang wrote: > Alexey reported that we have GFP_KERNEL allocation when > holding the spinlock tcf_lock. Actually we don't have > to take that spinlock for all the cases, especially > for the new one we just create. To modify the existing > actions, we still need this spinlock to make sure > the whole update is atomic. > > For net-next, we can get rid of this spinlock because > we already hold the RTNL lock on slow path, and on fast > path we can use RCU to protect the metalist. > > Joint work with Jamal. > > Reported-by: Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru> > Cc: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> Acked-by: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com> cheers, jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists