netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 08/10] net: sched: protect block idr with spinlock

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: <CAM_iQpVVKJtLJpjepPE=cpi2=3paxYp7yKvOz6PV6imjYi8BPQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 19 Sep 2018 15:09:03 -0700
From:   Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To:     Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
        Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
        David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
        Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@...tuozzo.com>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, mark.rutland@....com,
        Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>,
        "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
        David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>, christian@...uner.io,
        lucien xin <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 08/10] net: sched: protect block idr with spinlock

On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 12:19 AM Vlad Buslov <vladbu@...lanox.com> wrote:
> @@ -482,16 +483,25 @@ static int tcf_block_insert(struct tcf_block *block, struct net *net,
>                             struct netlink_ext_ack *extack)
>  {
>         struct tcf_net *tn = net_generic(net, tcf_net_id);
> +       int err;
> +
> +       idr_preload(GFP_KERNEL);
> +       spin_lock(&tn->idr_lock);
> +       err = idr_alloc_u32(&tn->idr, block, &block->index, block->index,
> +                           GFP_NOWAIT);


Why GFP_NOWAIT rather than GFP_ATOMIC here?