netdev - Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 06/12] qed: Add LL2 slowpath handling

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: <20171005.172013.746380495399822.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Thu, 05 Oct 2017 17:20:13 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org,
        dledford@...hat.com, Ariel.Elior@...ium.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 06/12] qed: Add LL2 slowpath handling

From: "Kalderon, Michal" <Michal.Kalderon@...ium.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2017 20:27:22 +0000

> The spinlock is required for the case that rx buffers are posted
> from a different thread, where it could be run simultaneously to the
> rxq_completion.

This only brings us back to my original argument, if the lock is
necessary in order to synchronize with those paths, how can you
possible drop the lock safely here?

Is it because you re-read the head and tail pointers of the queue each
time around the loop?