Re: [net-next-2.6 PATCH RFC] TCPCT part 1d: generate Responder Cookie

From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon Nov 02 2009 - 08:16:57 EST

William Allen Simpson a écrit :
> Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> cookie_hash() runs in a non preemptable context. CPU cannot change
>> under us.
>> (or else, we would not use __get_cpu_var(ipv4_cookie_scratch); )
>> And of course, each cpu gets its own scratch area, thanks to
>> __get_cpu_var()
> Interesting. I'm not sure that running CPU intensive functions like
> SHA1 in
> a non-preemptable context is a good idea. I'd assumed it wasn't!
> Perhaps you could point at the documentation in the code that explains
> this?

I suggest you read Documentations/ files about softirq

Large part of network code is run by softirq handler, and a softirq handler
is not preemptable with another softirq (including itself).

> Perhaps a function header comment that mentions it?

So we are going to add a header to thousand of functions repeating this prereq ?

> All I know is (from testing) that the tcp_minisockets.c caller is sometimes
> called in a fashion that requires atomic allocation, and other times
> does not!

Maybe callers have different contexts (running from softirq handler or
from process context). Atomic ops are expensive and we try to avoid them
if/when possible.

> See my "Subject: query: tcpdump versus atomic?" thread from Oct 14th.

You probably add a bug in your kernel, leaving a function with unpaired lock/unlock
of notallow_something/allow_something

There are books about linux internals that you could read if you want some extra
documentation. Dont ask me details, I never read them :)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at