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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191018232926.GA31917@linux.home>
Date:   Sat, 19 Oct 2019 01:29:26 +0200
From:   Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
To:     Pravin Shelar <pshelar@....org>
Cc:     Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
        Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...mgrid.com>,
        Jesse Gross <jesse@...ira.com>,
        Pravin B Shelar <pshelar@...ira.com>,
        Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH net] netns: fix GFP flags in rtnl_net_notifyid()

On Fri, Oct 18, 2019 at 01:55:46PM -0700, Pravin Shelar wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 13, 2019 at 3:22 PM Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com> wrote:
> > The point of my RFC is to know if it's possible to avoid all these
> > gfp_t flags, by allowing ovs_vport_cmd_fill_info() to sleep (at least
> > I'd like to figure out if it's worth spending time investigating this
> > path).
> >
> > To do so, we'd requires moving the ovs_vport_cmd_fill_info() call of
> > ovs_vport_cmd_{get,dump}() out of RCU critical section. Since we have
> > no reference counter, I believe we'd have to protect these calls with
> > ovs_lock() instead of RCU. Is that acceptable? If not, is there any
> > other way?
> 
> I do not see point of added complexity and serialized OVS flow dumps
> just to avoid GFP_ATOMIC allocations in some code path. What is issue
> passing the parameter as you have done in this patch?
> 
Adding the gfp_t parameter certainly isn't complex, but that's still
code churn for the affected functions. And since only very few call
paths actually needed GFP_ATOMIC, I wanted to investigate the
possibility of converting them.

But I'm fine with keeping the patch as is. I'll repost it formally.

Thanks for your review.

Guillaume

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ