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]
Date:   Tue, 2 Jul 2019 16:52:30 +0200
From:   Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
To:     Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        Ilias Apalodimas <ilias.apalodimas@...aro.org>,
        grygorii.strashko@...com, jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com,
        daniel@...earbox.net, john.fastabend@...il.com, ast@...nel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-omap@...r.kernel.org,
        brouer@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: core: page_pool: add user refcnt and reintroduce
 page_pool_destroy

On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:44:27 +0300
Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:31:39PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
> >From: Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
> >
> >Jesper recently removed page_pool_destroy() (from driver invocation) and
> >moved shutdown and free of page_pool into xdp_rxq_info_unreg(), in-order to
> >handle in-flight packets/pages. This created an asymmetry in drivers
> >create/destroy pairs.
> >
> >This patch add page_pool user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool_destroy.
> >This serves two purposes, (1) simplify drivers error handling as driver now
> >drivers always calls page_pool_destroy() and don't need to track if
> >xdp_rxq_info_reg_mem_model() was unsuccessful. (2) allow special cases
> >where a single RX-queue (with a single page_pool) provides packets for two
> >net_device'es, and thus needs to register the same page_pool twice with two
> >xdp_rxq_info structures.  
> 
> As I tend to use xdp level patch there is no more reason to mention (2) case
> here. XDP patch serves it better and can prevent not only obj deletion but also
> pool flush, so, this one patch I could better leave only for (1) case.
 
I don't understand what you are saying.

Do you approve this patch, or do you reject this patch?

-- 
Best regards,
  Jesper Dangaard Brouer
  MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
  LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ