netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net-sysfs: remove the rtnl_trylock/restart

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: <173745228357.4844.17327465949667802656@kwain>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2025 10:38:03 +0100
From: Antoine Tenart <atenart@...nel.org>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, pabeni@...hat.com, edumazet@...gle.com, stephen@...workplumber.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 0/4] net-sysfs: remove the rtnl_trylock/restart_syscall construction

Quoting Jakub Kicinski (2025-01-20 20:40:45)
> On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 11:26:07 +0100 Antoine Tenart wrote:
> > The series initially aimed at improving spins (and thus delays) while
> > accessing net sysfs under rtnl lock contention[1]. The culprit was the
> > trylock/restart_syscall constructions. There wasn't much interest at the
> > time but it got traction recently for other reasons (lowering the rtnl
> > lock pressure).
> 
> Sorry for the flip flop but would you mind if we applied this right
> after the merge window? It doesn't feel super risky, but on the small
> chance that it does blow up - explaining why we applied it during 
> the MW would be more of an apology..

That makes perfect sense and was actually what I was hoping for so it
can live for some time in net-next. I'll send a v2 right when net-next
reopens.