netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/7] net/smc: remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr

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] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <a0de12ab-dd9a-acfe-4324-78815d6ebc35@linux.alibaba.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 18:51:05 +0800
From:   "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
To:     Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>, jaka@...ux.ibm.com,
        kgraul@...ux.ibm.com
Cc:     kuba@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-s390@...r.kernel.org, linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v6 1/7] net/smc: remove locks
 smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr_pending



On 1/30/23 4:37 PM, Wenjia Zhang wrote:
> 
> 
> On 29.01.23 16:11, D. Wythe wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11/26/22 5:03 PM, D.Wythe wrote:
>>> From: "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.com>
>>>
>>> This patch attempts to remove locks named smc_client_lgr_pending and
>>> smc_server_lgr_pending, which aim to serialize the creation of link
>>> group. However, once link group existed already, those locks are
>>> meaningless, worse still, they make incoming connections have to be
>>> queued one after the other.
>>>
>>> Now, the creation of link group is no longer generated by competition,
>>> but allocated through following strategy.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Hi, all
>>
>> I have noticed that there may be some difficulties in the advancement of this series of patches.
>> I guess the main problem is to try remove the global lock in this patch, the risks of removing locks
>> do harm to SMC-D, at the same time, this patch of removing locks is also a little too complex.
>>
>> So, I am considering that we can temporarily delay the advancement of this patch. We can works on
>> other patches first. Other patches are either simple enough or have no obvious impact on SMC-D.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Best wishes.
>> D. Wythe
>>
>>
> Hi D. Wythe,
> 
> that sounds good. Thank you for your consideration about SMC-D!

Hi Wenjia,

Thanks for your reply.

> Removing locks is indeed a big issue, those patches make us difficult to accept without thoroughly testing in every corner.
> 
> Best
> Wenjia

What do you mean by those patches? My plan is to delete the first patch in this series,
that is, 'remove locks smc_client_lgr_pending and smc_server_lgr_pending', while other patches
should be retained.

They has almost nothing impact on SMC-D or simple enough to be tested. If you agree with this,
I can then issue the next version as soon as possible to remove the first patch, and I think
we can quickly promote those patches.

Thanks.
Wenjia