netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] mld: convert from timer to delayed work

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 16 Feb 2021 23:46:58 +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>,
        jwi@...ux.ibm.com, kgraul@...ux.ibm.com, hca@...ux.ibm.com,
        gor@...ux.ibm.com, borntraeger@...ibm.com,
        Marek Lindner <mareklindner@...mailbox.ch>,
        sw@...onwunderlich.de, a@...table.cc, sven@...fation.org,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
        dsahern@...nel.org, ap420073@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/7] mld: convert from timer to delayed work


[...]
 >> By the way, I think the 'delay' is from the
 >> unsolicited_report_interval() and it just return value of
 >> idev->cnf.mldv{1 | 2}_unsolicited_report_interval.
 >> I think this value is msecs, not jiffies.
 >> So, It should be converted to use msecs_to_jiffies(), I think.
 >> How do you think about it?
 >
 > Hmm? I think it is in jiffies:
 >
 >          .mldv1_unsolicited_report_interval = 10 * HZ,
 >          .mldv2_unsolicited_report_interval = HZ,
 >

Ah, yes, you're right!
Thanks,

 >
 >>
 >>   > [...]
 >>   >
 >>   >> -static void mld_dad_timer_expire(struct timer_list *t)
 >>   >> +static void mld_dad_work(struct work_struct *work)
 >>   >>   {
 >>   >> -       struct inet6_dev *idev = from_timer(idev, t, mc_dad_timer);
 >>   >> +       struct inet6_dev *idev = 
container_of(to_delayed_work(work),
 >>   >> +                                             struct inet6_dev,
 >>   >> +                                             mc_dad_work);
 >>   >>
 >>   >> +       rtnl_lock();
 >>   >
 >>   > Any reason why we need RTNL after converting the timer to
 >>   > delayed work?
 >>   >
 >>
 >> For the moment, RTNL is not needed.
 >> But the Resources, which are used by delayed_work will be protected by
 >> RTNL instead of other locks.
 >> So, It just pre-adds RTNL and the following patches will delete 
other locks.
 >
 > Sounds like this change does not belong to this patch. ;) If so,
 > please move it to where ever more appropriate.
 >

Yes, I will do that,
I will rearrange it then I will send a v3 patch.
Thank you so much for your review!