[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20190129085903.GC28485@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2019 09:59:03 +0100
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>
Cc: Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
daniel@...earbox.net, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, kernel-team@...com, mingo@...hat.com,
will.deacon@....com, Paul McKenney <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
jannh@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 bpf-next 1/9] bpf: introduce bpf_spin_lock
On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 01:37:12PM -0800, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 09:43:10AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > Isn't that still broken? AFAIU networking progs can happen in task
> > context (TX) and SoftIRQ context (RX), which can nest.
>
> Sure. sendmsg side of networking can be interrupted by napi receive.
> Both can have bpf progs attached at different points, but napi won't run
> when bpf prog is running, because bpf prog disables preemption.
Disabling preemption is not sufficient, it needs to have done
local_bh_disable(), which isn't unlikely given this is all networking
code.
Anyway, if you're sure that's all good, I'll trust you on that. It's
been a very _very_ long time since I looked at the networking code.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists