On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 08:38:07AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> yeah. I'll investigate - it's quite likely that sk_receive_queue.lock
> will have to get per-address family locking rules - right?
Yes that's the issue.
> Maybe it's enough to introduce a separate key for AF_UNIX alone (and
> still having all other protocols share the locking rules for
> sk_receive_queue.lock) , by reinitializing its spinlock after
> sock_init_data()?
This could work. AF_UNIX is probably the only family that does not
interact with hardware.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
