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] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Thu, 30 Nov 2017 18:05:56 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>
To:     Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        oss-drivers@...ronome.com, alexei.starovoitov@...il.com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, "Eric W . Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC] bpf: offload: report device information for offloaded
 programs

Hi Kirill,

On Thu, 30 Nov 2017 16:19:13 +0300, Kirill Tkhai wrote:
> > @@ -164,6 +166,38 @@ int bpf_prog_offload_compile(struct bpf_prog *prog)
> >  	return bpf_prog_offload_translate(prog);
> >  }
> >  
> > +int bpf_prog_offload_info_fill(struct bpf_prog_info *info,
> > +			       struct bpf_prog *prog)
> > +{
> > +	struct bpf_dev_offload *offload = prog->aux->offload;
> > +	struct inode *ns_inode;
> > +	struct path ns_path;
> > +	struct net *net;
> > +	int ret = 0;
> > +	void *ptr;
> > +
> > +	info->dev_bound = 1;
> > +
> > +	rtnl_lock();  
> 
> rtnl_lock() is too big lock and it is already overused in kernel.
> Can't we use smaller lock in this driver to protect bpf_prog_offload_devs?
> I suppose rwlock would be appropriate for that.
> 
> (Then, we may completely remove rtnl_lock() from bpf_prog_offload_init()
> and use readlocked dev_base_lock for __dev_get_by_index() instead and
> the new small_rwlock to link in the list.
> 
> Not sure about bpf_prog_offload_verifier_prep() and bpf_prog_offload_translate()
> and which context expect net_device_ops->ndo_bpf users. Either they need rtnl
> or not).

Thanks for the comments, removing the use of rtnl_lock is definitely on
my todo list!

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ