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  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Fri, 10 Aug 2018 14:45:24 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <>
To:     Vlad Buslov <>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <>,
        David Miller <>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <>,
        Daniel Borkmann <>,
        Yevgeny Kliteynik <>,
        Jiri Pirko <>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 10/11] net: sched: atomically check-allocate action

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:29 AM Vlad Buslov <> wrote:
> Approach you suggest is valid, but has its own trade-offs:
> - As you noted, lock granularity becomes coarse-grained due to per-netns
> scope.

Sure, you acquire idrinfo->lock too, the only difference is how long
you take it.

The bottleneck of your approach is the same, also you take idrinfo->lock
twice, so the contention is heavier.

> - I am not sure it is possible to call idr_replace() without obtaining
> idrinfo->lock in this particular case. Concurrent delete of action with
> same id is possible and, according to idr_replace() description,
> unlocked execution is not supported for such use-case:

But we can hold its refcnt before releasing idrinfo->lock, so
idr_replace() can't race with concurrent delete.

> - High rate or replace request will generate a lot of unnecessary memory
> allocations and deallocations.

Yes, this is literally how RCU works, always allocate and copy,
release upon error.

Also, if this is really a problem, we have SLAB_TYPESAFE_BY_RCU
too. ;)

Powered by blists - more mailing lists