netdev - Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire operation

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]

Message-ID: <willemdebruijn.kernel.2db2cab231dcd@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2025 03:21:49 -0400
From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
To: Xin Zhao <jackzxcui1989@....com>, 
 willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, 
 edumazet@...gle.com, 
 ferenc@...es.dev
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, 
 kuba@...nel.org, 
 pabeni@...hat.com, 
 horms@...nel.org, 
 netdev@...r.kernel.org, 
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v3] net: af_packet: Use hrtimer to do the retire
 operation

Xin Zhao wrote:
> On Sun, 2025-08-17 at 21:28 +0800, Willem wrote:
> 
> > Here we cannot use hrtimer_add_expires for the same reason you gave in
> > the second version of the patch:
> > 
> > > Additionally, I think we cannot avoid using ktime_get, as the retire
> > > timeout for each block is not fixed. When there are a lot of network packets,
> > > a block can retire quickly, and if we do not re-fetch the time, the timeout
> > > duration may be set incorrectly.
> > 
> > Is that right?
> > 
> > Otherwise patch LGTM.
> 
> 
> Dear Willem,
> 
> I have adjusted the logic in the recently sent v4 version by adding a boolean variable start
> to distinguish whether it is the case of prb_open_block. If it is prb_open_block, I use
> hrtimer_start to (re)start the timer; otherwise, I use hrtimer_set_expires to update the
> expiration time. Additionally, I have added comments explaining this branch selection before
> the _prb_refresh_rx_retire_blk_timer function.
> 
> I apologize for sending three PATCH v4 emails in a row. In the first email, I forgot to include
> the link to v3. In the second email, there were no blank lines between v4 and v3.
> Therefore, you can just refer to the latest v4 version in the third PATCH v4 email.

For the future: do not resend a patch within 24 hours.

And do not resend a patch with the same number. Again, follow the
documentation I pointed to before.