netdev - Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 11/19] ionic: Add Rx filter and rx

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: <5e3d5b42-2787-9fcf-1cd5-fb3063dfabc9@pensando.io>
Date:   Tue, 23 Jul 2019 17:19:54 -0700
From:   Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
To:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:     netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 11/19] ionic: Add Rx filter and rx_mode ndo
 support

On 7/23/19 4:06 PM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Shannon Nelson <snelson@...sando.io>
> Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 15:50:43 -0700
>
>> On 7/23/19 2:33 PM, David Miller wrote:
>>> Generally interface address changes are expected to be synchronous.
>> Yeah, this bothers me a bit as well, but the address change calls come
>> in under spin_lock_bh(), and I'm reluctant to make an AdminQ call
>> under the _bh that could block for a few seconds.
> So it's not about memory allocation but rather the fact that the device
> might take a while to complete?

Memory allocation may or may not be involved, but yes, mainly we're 
doing another spin_lock on a firmware command that waits for an ACK or 
ERROR answer, and in extreme cases could possibly timeout on a dead 
firmware.  I know that i40e and ice do much the same thing, and I 
believe mlx5 as well, for the same reasons.  I suspect others do as well.

> Can you start the operation synchronously yet complete it async?

This could be possible, but would likely require a bunch more messy 
logic to track async AdminQ requests, that otherwise is unnecessary.

sln