netsniff-ng.git - A high-performance Linux networking toolkit

Age	Commit message (Expand)	Author	Files	Lines
2013-06-04	xutils: eliminate xutils, move rest to epoll2	Daniel Borkmann	1	-0/+2
2013-06-03	netsniff-ng: v3: fix packet accounting on --num	Daniel Borkmann	1	-0/+1
2013-05-31	ring: setup frame structure for v2/v3 in a generic way	Daniel Borkmann	1	-1/+1
2013-05-31	ring: implement setup of tpacket v3 ring	Daniel Borkmann	1	-0/+5
2013-05-30	ring: setup_{rx,tx}_ring_layout: use bool for jumbo_support	Daniel Borkmann	1	-1/+1
2013-05-30	ring: prepare setup_rx_ring_layout for support in v2/v3	Daniel Borkmann	1	-1/+1
2013-05-30	ring: add necessary structures and helper functions for v3	Daniel Borkmann	1	-0/+5
2013-03-15	all: import netsniff-ng 0.5.8-rc0 source	Daniel Borkmann	1	-0/+31

s:2236; 2. call to function `pl330_release_channel' immediately after; 3. call to function `dma_pl330_rqcb' in line 1753; 4. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at dma_pl330_rqcb:1505. I have fixed it as suggested by Marek Szyprowski. First, I have replaced `pch->lock' with `pl330->lock' in functions `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' and `pl330_free_chan_resources'. This avoids the double-lock by acquiring a different lock than `dma_pl330_rqcb'. NOTE that, as a result, `pl330_free_chan_resources' executes `list_splice_tail_init' on `pch->work_list' under lock `pl330->lock', whereas in the rest of the code `pch->work_list' is protected by `pch->lock'. I don't know if this may cause race conditions. Similarly `pch->cyclic' is written by `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' under `pl330->lock' but read by `pl330_tx_submit' under `pch->lock'. Second, I have removed locking from `pl330_request_channel' and `pl330_release_channel' functions. Function `pl330_request_channel' is only called from `pl330_alloc_chan_resources', so the lock is already held. Function `pl330_release_channel' is called from `pl330_free_chan_resources', which already holds the lock, and from `pl330_del'. Function `pl330_del' is called in an error path of `pl330_probe' and at the end of `pl330_remove', but I assume that there cannot be concurrent accesses to the protected data at those points. Signed-off-by: Iago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu> Reviewed-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>

Diffstat (limited to 'include/trace')