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 PHC | |
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2019 15:08:19 -0800 (PST) From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> To: alexei.starovoitov@...il.com Cc: tglx@...utronix.de, ast@...nel.org, daniel@...earbox.net, bpf@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: bpf and local lock From: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com> Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 13:52:38 -0800 > On Mon, Nov 25, 2019 at 11:14:33AM -0800, David Miller wrote: >> >> Thomas, >> >> I am working on eliminating the explicit softirq disables around BPF >> program invocation and replacing it with local lock usage instead. >> >> We would really need to at least have the non-RT stubs upstream to >> propagate this cleanly, do you think this is possible? > > Hi Thomas, > > seconding the same question: any chance local lock api can be sent upstream > soon? If api skeleton can get in during this merge window we will have the next > bpf-next/net-next cycle to sort out details. If not the bpf+rt would need to > wait one more release. Not a big deal. Just trying to figure out a time line > when can we start working on concrete bpf+rt patches. FWIW, I have some simple patches I'm working on that start to annotate the bpf function invocation call sites. And as part of that I add the non-RT stubs plus some new interfaces I think might be necessary. I've been told Thomas is going to be offline for another week so I'll just keep working on this and post when I have something concrete.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists