netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/1] ppp: Replace per-CPU recursion counter with lock-owner field

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: <68a3115b-8ae6-47bc-aaf5-b38e4f83c5f9@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:40:10 +0200
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
To: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>,
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-rt-devel@...ts.linux.dev,
 linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org
Cc: "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
 Andrew Lunn <andrew+netdev@...n.ch>, Clark Williams <clrkwllms@...nel.org>,
 Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
 Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3 0/1] ppp: Replace per-CPU recursion counter
 with lock-owner field

On 7/15/25 5:08 PM, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
> This is another approach to avoid relying on local_bh_disable() for
> locking of per-CPU in ppp.
> 
> I redid it with the per-CPU lock and local_lock_nested_bh() as discussed
> in v1. The xmit_recursion counter has been removed since it served the
> same purpose as the owner field. Both were updated and checked.
> 
> The xmit_recursion looks like a counter in ppp_channel_push() but at
> this point, the counter should always be 0 so it always serves as a
> boolean. Therefore I removed it.
> 
> I do admit that this looks easier to review.

Thanks for reworking the change. I do agree with the above ;)

FTR no need to add a cover letter to a single patch series.

(but, since the matter at hand is IMHO non trivial, in this specific
case I'll preserve the cover letter)

/P