On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:41:43PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> >+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> >@@ -74,7 +74,18 @@ void nf_conntrack_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> > spin_lock(lock);
> > while (unlikely(nf_conntrack_locks_all)) {
> >
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:41:43PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> >+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> >@@ -74,7 +74,18 @@ void nf_conntrack_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> > spin_lock(lock);
> > while (unlikely(nf_conntrack_locks_all)) {
> >
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:27:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> nf_conntrack_lock{,_all}() is borken as it misses a bunch of memory
> barriers to order the whole global vs local locks scheme.
>
> Even x86 (and other TSO archs) are affected.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 04:27:26PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> nf_conntrack_lock{,_all}() is borken as it misses a bunch of memory
> barriers to order the whole global vs local locks scheme.
>
> Even x86 (and other TSO archs) are affected.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
> ---
>
nf_conntrack_lock{,_all}() is borken as it misses a bunch of memory
barriers to order the whole global vs local locks scheme.
Even x86 (and other TSO archs) are affected.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 30
nf_conntrack_lock{,_all}() is borken as it misses a bunch of memory
barriers to order the whole global vs local locks scheme.
Even x86 (and other TSO archs) are affected.
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel)
---
net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c | 30 +-
1 file
6 matches
Mail list logo