netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 10/10] bnxt_en: Remove atomic operations on ptp->tx

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]

Date: Thu, 27 Jun 2024 08:43:36 -0700
From: Michael Chan <michael.chan@...adcom.com>
To: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
Cc: Przemek Kitszel <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
	edumazet@...gle.com, kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, 
	andrew.gospodarek@...adcom.com, richardcochran@...il.com, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 10/10] bnxt_en: Remove atomic operations on ptp->tx_avail

On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 8:34 AM Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jun 27, 2024 at 3:10 PM Przemek Kitszel
> <przemyslaw.kitszel@...el.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 6/26/24 18:43, Michael Chan wrote:
> > > From: Pavan Chebbi <pavan.chebbi@...adcom.com>
> > >
> > > Now that we require the spinlock to protect ptp->txts_prod, change
> > > ptp->tx_avail to non-atomic and protect it under the same spinlock.
> >
> > Under what condition you will exceed those 4 entries?
>
> Only when an application chooses to do so.

The practical scenario is on a Multi-host system sharing the same NIC
with multiple hosts running PTP applications.

Download attachment "smime.p7s" of type "application/pkcs7-signature" (4209 bytes)