netdev - Re: [PATCH] net: core: page_pool: add user refcnt and reintroduce page_pool

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 18:21:13 +0300
From:   Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org>
To:     Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
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
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net: core: page_pool: add user refcnt and reintroduce
 page_pool_destroy

On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 05:10:29PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>On Tue, 2 Jul 2019 17:56:13 +0300
>Ivan Khoronzhuk <ivan.khoronzhuk@...aro.org> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 02, 2019 at 04:52:30PM +0200, Jesper Dangaard Brouer wrote:
>> >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?
>> >
>> It's not reject, it's proposition to use both, XDP and page pool patches,
>> each having its goal.
>
>Just to be clear, if you want this patch to get accepted you have to
>reply with your Signed-off-by (as I wrote).
>
>Maybe we should discuss it in another thread, about why you want two
>solutions to the same problem.

If it solves same problem I propose to reject this one and use this:
https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/7/2/651

-- 
Regards,
Ivan Khoronzhuk