[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ipchains-dev
Subject:    Re: [Ipchains-dev] denial of services protection
From:       Paul Rusty Russell <Paul.Russell () rustcorp ! com ! au>
Date:       1999-05-30 2:56:24
[Download RAW message or body]

In message <m10nZcr-000mY7C@rustcorp.com.au> you write:
> In message <Pine.GSO.4.03.9905281625310.9271-101000@malet> you write:
> > here's v0.2:
> 
> I like it.  Applied.

Spoke too soon.  You'd need spin_lock_irq(), since it could be
accessed in an interrupt (=> deadlock); I just checked, and you used
spin_lock()/spin_unlock().

So, better is probably to use the atomic operations; I don't *think*
this will cause any problems even one tbf variable is updated, the
interrupt occurs, and then the other is updated.  Please check...

Rusty.
--
Tridge, Raster, DaveM, Cort, maddog... Where will you be 9-11 July 1999?
                http://www.linux.org.au/projects/calu

----------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe to this list, write an email to
ipchains-dev-request@rustcorp.com with a body
of 'unsubscribe'.

www.rustcorp.com - web site
ftp.rustcorp.com - ftp site
----------------------------------------------

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]