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
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
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