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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <c45960d9-c358-e47b-0a33-1de8c3a8f94c@linux.ibm.com>
Date:   Mon, 30 Jan 2023 09:37:54 +0100
From:   Wenjia Zhang <wenjia@...ux.ibm.com>
To:     "D. Wythe" <alibuda@...ux.alibaba.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 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!
Removing locks is indeed a big issue, those patches make us difficult to 
accept without thoroughly testing in every corner.

Best
Wenjia