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: <ZdhGaMacDdcw5H_A@nanopsycho>
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 08:16:56 +0100
From: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
	Jiri Pirko <jiri@...dia.com>, eric.dumazet@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 net-next 03/14] ipv6: prepare inet6_fill_ifinfo() for
 RCU protection

Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 05:45:20PM CET, edumazet@...gle.com wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:36 PM Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us> wrote:
>>
>> Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:50:10AM CET, edumazet@...gle.com wrote:
>> >We want to use RCU protection instead of RTNL
>>
>> Is this a royal "We"? :)
>
>I was hoping reducing RTNL pressure was a team effort.

Yeah sure, it just reads odd to me, that's it. Basically if you state
the motivation in the cover letter, then in the patches you just tell
the codebase what to do and this "we want" statement become redundant.


>
>If not, maybe I should consider doing something else, if hundreds of
>kernel engineers are adding more and more stuff depending on RTNL.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ