Re: bpf(4), csignal() and selwakup()

2016-08-19 Thread Martin Pieuchot
On 16/08/16(Tue) 20:01, Philip Guenther wrote: > On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > > I'd like to make sure that bpf_tap(9) does not grab the KERNEL_LOCK(). > > The reason is to reduce the potential lock ordering problems within PF. > > > > I'm currently using a mutex to serialize

Re: bpf(4), csignal() and selwakup()

2016-08-16 Thread Philip Guenther
On Mon, 15 Aug 2016, Martin Pieuchot wrote: > I'd like to make sure that bpf_tap(9) does not grab the KERNEL_LOCK(). > The reason is to reduce the potential lock ordering problems within PF. > > I'm currently using a mutex to serialize buffer changes, but since > bpf_wakeup() will still need the

bpf(4), csignal() and selwakup()

2016-08-15 Thread Martin Pieuchot
I'd like to make sure that bpf_tap(9) does not grab the KERNEL_LOCK(). The reason is to reduce the potential lock ordering problems within PF. I'm currently using a mutex to serialize buffer changes, but since bpf_wakeup() will still need the KERNEL_LOCK(), I'm using a task for that. Diff below