netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] mld: change context from atomic to sleepable

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: <CAMArcTXXsWoRqcsg0-zkDTwPbAonBCo1tBiKTr7_ZBF1Y5NxqQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 9 Feb 2021 11:17:21 +0900
From:   Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com>
To:     Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
Cc:     David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
        dsahern@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/8] mld: change context from atomic to sleepable

On Tue, 9 Feb 2021 at 10:50, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com> wrote:
>

Hi Cong!
Thank you for your review.

> On Mon, Feb 8, 2021 at 9:50 AM Taehee Yoo <ap420073@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > This patchset changes context of MLD module.
> > Before this patch, MLD functions are atomic context so it couldn't use
> > sleepable functions and flags.
> > This patchset also contains other refactoring patches, which is to use
> > list macro, etc.
> >
> > 1~3 and 5~7 are refactoring patches and 4 and 8 patches actually
> > change context, which is the actual goal of this patchset.
> > MLD module has used timer API. The timer expiration function is
> > processed as the atomic context so in order to change context,
> > it should be replaced.
> > So, The fourth patch is to switch from timer to delayed_work.
> > And the eighth patch is to use the mutex instead of spinlock and
> > rwlock because A critical section of spinlock and rwlock is atomic.
>
> Thanks for working on this.
>
> A quick question: are those cleanup or refactoring patches necessary
> for the main patch, that is patch 4? If not, please consider separating
> patch 4 and patch 8 out, as they fix a bug so they are different from
> the others.
>

You're right, this patchset contains many unnecessary changes.
So I will send a v2 patch, which contains only the necessary changes.
And target branch will be 'net', not 'net-next'.

Thanks a lot for the suggestions and review!
Taehee Yoo

> Thanks!