On Fri, Jun 08, 2007 at 02:20:01PM -0400, James Carlson wrote: > Garrett D'Amore writes: > > I think the answer is no, here, because of ip_rput. There is a risk > > that some badly written driver will call putnext() to pass a packet > > upstream while holding a lock. Cetainly I think this can be called > > while the driver is operating in interrupt context. > > Holding a lock across putnext is just a programming error. How far do > we have to go to protect against programming errors? (Should the > stack check for freed mblks?)
So Jim, are you saying that I *could* call crypto synchronously because the correct behavior is not to hold locks? If so, that's encouraging for the HW crypto folks in the audience. Thanks, Dan _______________________________________________ networking-discuss mailing list [email protected]
