Diff below contains the interesting bits to unlock most of the network
related syscalls. As previously explained [0], we know that `f_data'
is immutable for sockets so we only have to protect `f_count'. This
is done by using a global mutex: `fhdlk'.
I'm aware that this is not the best solution,
Diff below is the last of the serie to remove the KERNEL_LOCK() from
sendto(2) and sendmsg(2) for sockets protected by the NET_LOCK().
As explained previously [0] this diff uses a simple non-intrusive
approached based on a single mutex. I'd like to get this in before
doing any refactoring of this
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:24:00 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> Diff below is the last of the serie to remove the KERNEL_LOCK() from
> sendto(2) and sendmsg(2) for sockets protected by the NET_LOCK().
>
> As explained previously [0] this diff uses a simple non-intrusive
> approached based on
On 18/06/18(Mon) 18:18, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:24:00 +0200
> > From: Martin Pieuchot
> >
> > Diff below is the last of the serie to remove the KERNEL_LOCK() from
> > sendto(2) and sendmsg(2) for sockets protected by the NET_LOCK().
> >
> > As explained previously [0]
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 10:54:21 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> On 18/06/18(Mon) 18:18, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2018 11:24:00 +0200
> > > From: Martin Pieuchot
> > >
> > > Diff below is the last of the serie to remove the KERNEL_LOCK() from
> > > sendto(2) and sendmsg(2
On 19/06/18(Tue) 14:55, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > To avoid races with another thread that might be clearing our pointer
> > in `fd_ofiles', we need more than atomic operations. For that we need
> > to serialize the threads. The most simple way to do so is with a mutex
> > on a different data struc
> Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:38:01 +0200
> From: Martin Pieuchot
>
> On 19/06/18(Tue) 14:55, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > To avoid races with another thread that might be clearing our pointer
> > > in `fd_ofiles', we need more than atomic operations. For that we need
> > > to serialize the threads.
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:38:01 +0200
> > From: Martin Pieuchot
> >
> > On 19/06/18(Tue) 14:55, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > To avoid races with another thread that might be clearing our pointer
> > > > in `fd_ofiles', we need mor
On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 03:36:57PM +, Visa Hankala wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2018 15:38:01 +0200
> > > From: Martin Pieuchot
> > >
> > > On 19/06/18(Tue) 14:55, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > > > To avoid races with another thr
On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 04:49:48PM +, Visa Hankala wrote:
> Here is an updated diff that has been adjusted for the current tree.
Hmm, the diff is not right yet. Please ignore.
Here is a new version of the f_count atomic update diff. Now all
updating of the `f_count' field should use atomic operations, and
the `fhdlk' is only used for serializing access to the list of open
files. In addition, the role of the `fd_fplock' should be clearer now:
its only purpose is to let fd
11 matches
Mail list logo
