netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] udp: keep the sk_receive

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>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <1494879777.3586.21.camel@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 15 May 2017 22:22:57 +0200
From:   Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 3/3] udp: keep the sk_receive_queue held when
 splicing

On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 09:11 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-05-15 at 11:01 +0200, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> > On packet reception, when we are forced to splice the
> > sk_receive_queue, we can keep the related lock held, so
> > that we can avoid re-acquiring it, if fwd memory
> > scheduling is required.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/udp.c | 36 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 26 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/udp.c b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > index 492c76b..d698973 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/udp.c
> > @@ -1164,7 +1164,8 @@ int udp_sendpage(struct sock *sk, struct page *page, int offset,
> >  }
> >  
> >  /* fully reclaim rmem/fwd memory allocated for skb */
> > -static void udp_rmem_release(struct sock *sk, int size, int partial)
> > +static void udp_rmem_release(struct sock *sk, int size, int partial,
> > +			     int rx_queue_lock_held)
> 
> Looks good, but please use a bool rx_queue_lock_held ?

oops, I wrongly omitted some most recipients in my initial reply, re-
sending. Eric, I'm sorry for the duplicates.

ok, it sounds cleaner, I will submit a v2.

Thank you for reviewing this!

Cheers,

Paolo