netdev - Re: [net-next,v2] tcp: Use per-vma locking for receive zerocopy

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: Fri, 7 Jul 2023 17:44:44 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>
Cc: Arjun Roy <arjunroy.kdev@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, arjunroy@...gle.com, 
	soheil@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org, 
	dsahern@...nel.org, davem@...emloft.net, linux-mm@...ck.org, 
	pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [net-next,v2] tcp: Use per-vma locking for receive zerocopy

On Thu, Jul 6, 2023 at 9:43 PM Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 16, 2023 at 12:34:27PM -0700, Arjun Roy wrote:
> > However, with per-vma locking, both of these problems can be avoided.
>
> I appreciate your enthusiasm for this.  However, applying this patch
> completely wrecks my patch series to push per-vma locking down for
> file-backed mappings.  It would be helpful if we can back this out
> for now and then apply it after that patch series.
>
> Would it make life hard for this patch to go through the mm tree?
>

No worries, can you send a formal revert then ?

(With some details, because I do not see why you can not simply add
the revert in front of your series ?)

Thanks.