* [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
@ 2019-05-07 4:03 Jason Wang
2019-05-07 4:54 ` Cong Wang
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-05-07 4:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: netdev
Cc: mst, Jason Wang, YueHaibing, Cong Wang, weiyongjun (A), Eric Dumazet
When a queue(tfile) is detached through __tun_detach(), we move the
last enabled tfile to the position where detached one sit but don't
NULL out last position. We expect to synchronize the datapath through
tun->numqueues. Unfortunately, this won't work since we're lacking
sufficient mechanism to order or synchronize the access to
tun->numqueues.
To fix this, NULL out the last position during detaching and check
RCU protected tfile against NULL instead of checking tun->numqueues in
datapath.
Cc: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Cc: weiyongjun (A) <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Fixes: c8d68e6be1c3b ("tuntap: multiqueue support")
Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
---
Changes from V1:
- keep the check in tun_xdp_xmit()
---
drivers/net/tun.c | 8 +++++++-
1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
index e9ca1c0..32a0b23 100644
--- a/drivers/net/tun.c
+++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
@@ -700,6 +700,8 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
ntfile->queue_index = index;
+ rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1],
+ NULL);
--tun->numqueues;
if (clean) {
@@ -1082,7 +1084,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t tun_net_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[txq]);
/* Drop packet if interface is not attached */
- if (txq >= tun->numqueues)
+ if (!tfile)
goto drop;
if (!rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog))
@@ -1313,6 +1315,10 @@ static int tun_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, int n,
tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[smp_processor_id() %
numqueues]);
+ if (!tfile) {
+ rcu_read_unlock();
+ return -ENXIO; /* Caller will free/return all frames */
+ }
spin_lock(&tfile->tx_ring.producer_lock);
for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
--
1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-07 4:03 [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues Jason Wang
@ 2019-05-07 4:54 ` Cong Wang
2019-05-07 6:19 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-08 4:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-05-08 17:36 ` David Miller
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Cong Wang @ 2019-05-07 4:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Wang
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers, Michael S. Tsirkin, YueHaibing,
weiyongjun (A),
Eric Dumazet
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> index e9ca1c0..32a0b23 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> @@ -700,6 +700,8 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
> ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
> ntfile->queue_index = index;
> + rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1],
> + NULL);
>
How does this work? Existing readers could still read this
tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1] before you NULL it. And,
_if_ the following sock_put() is the one frees it, you still miss
a RCU grace period.
if (clean) {
RCU_INIT_POINTER(tfile->tun, NULL);
sock_put(&tfile->sk);
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-07 4:54 ` Cong Wang
@ 2019-05-07 6:19 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-07 14:41 ` Cong Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-05-07 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cong Wang
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers, Michael S. Tsirkin, YueHaibing,
weiyongjun (A),
Eric Dumazet
On 2019/5/7 下午12:54, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> index e9ca1c0..32a0b23 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> @@ -700,6 +700,8 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
>> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
>> ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
>> ntfile->queue_index = index;
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1],
>> + NULL);
>>
> How does this work? Existing readers could still read this
> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1] before you NULL it. And,
> _if_ the following sock_put() is the one frees it, you still miss
> a RCU grace period.
>
> if (clean) {
> RCU_INIT_POINTER(tfile->tun, NULL);
> sock_put(&tfile->sk);
>
>
> Thanks.
My understanding is the socket will never be freed for this sock_put().
We just drop an extra reference count we held when the socket was
attached to the netdevice (there's a sock_hold() in tun_attach()). The
real free should happen at another sock_put() in the end of this function.
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-07 6:19 ` Jason Wang
@ 2019-05-07 14:41 ` Cong Wang
2019-05-08 2:54 ` Jason Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Cong Wang @ 2019-05-07 14:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Wang
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers, Michael S. Tsirkin, YueHaibing,
weiyongjun (A),
Eric Dumazet
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:19 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 2019/5/7 下午12:54, Cong Wang wrote:
> > On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> >> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >> index e9ca1c0..32a0b23 100644
> >> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> >> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> >> @@ -700,6 +700,8 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
> >> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
> >> ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
> >> ntfile->queue_index = index;
> >> + rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1],
> >> + NULL);
> >>
> > How does this work? Existing readers could still read this
> > tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1] before you NULL it. And,
> > _if_ the following sock_put() is the one frees it, you still miss
> > a RCU grace period.
> >
> > if (clean) {
> > RCU_INIT_POINTER(tfile->tun, NULL);
> > sock_put(&tfile->sk);
> >
> >
> > Thanks.
>
>
> My understanding is the socket will never be freed for this sock_put().
> We just drop an extra reference count we held when the socket was
> attached to the netdevice (there's a sock_hold() in tun_attach()). The
> real free should happen at another sock_put() in the end of this function.
So you are saying readers will never read this sock after free, then
what are you fixing with this patch? Nothing, right?
As I said, reading a stale tun->numqueues is fine, you just keep
believing it is a problem.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-07 14:41 ` Cong Wang
@ 2019-05-08 2:54 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-09 5:34 ` Cong Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-05-08 2:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cong Wang
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers, Michael S. Tsirkin, YueHaibing,
weiyongjun (A),
Eric Dumazet
On 2019/5/7 下午10:41, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:19 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 2019/5/7 下午12:54, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 9:03 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>> index e9ca1c0..32a0b23 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>>>> @@ -700,6 +700,8 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
>>>> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
>>>> ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
>>>> ntfile->queue_index = index;
>>>> + rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1],
>>>> + NULL);
>>>>
>>> How does this work? Existing readers could still read this
>>> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1] before you NULL it. And,
>>> _if_ the following sock_put() is the one frees it, you still miss
>>> a RCU grace period.
>>>
>>> if (clean) {
>>> RCU_INIT_POINTER(tfile->tun, NULL);
>>> sock_put(&tfile->sk);
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>> My understanding is the socket will never be freed for this sock_put().
>> We just drop an extra reference count we held when the socket was
>> attached to the netdevice (there's a sock_hold() in tun_attach()). The
>> real free should happen at another sock_put() in the end of this function.
> So you are saying readers will never read this sock after free, then
> what are you fixing with this patch? Nothing, right?
It's the issue of the second sock_put() in tun_detach() not the first
one. Without proper synchronization for tun->numqueues, tun_net_xmit()
can actually dereference a tfile which has been freed by second
sock_put(). The synchornize_net() doesn't help since we're trying to
synchronize through tun->numqueues.
>
> As I said, reading a stale tun->numqueues is fine, you just keep
> believing it is a problem.
This is only true if you can make sure tfile[tun->numqueues] is not
freed. Either my patch or SOCK_RCU_FREE can solve this, but for
SOCK_RCU_FREE we need do extra careful audit to make sure it doesn't
break someting. So synchronize through pointers in tfiles[] which is
already protected by RCU is much more easier. It can make sure no
dereference from xmit path after synchornize_net(). And this matches the
assumptions of the codes after synchronize_net().
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-07 4:03 [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues Jason Wang
2019-05-07 4:54 ` Cong Wang
@ 2019-05-08 4:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-05-08 4:30 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-08 17:36 ` David Miller
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Michael S. Tsirkin @ 2019-05-08 4:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Wang; +Cc: netdev, YueHaibing, Cong Wang, weiyongjun (A), Eric Dumazet
On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 12:03:36AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote:
> When a queue(tfile) is detached through __tun_detach(), we move the
> last enabled tfile to the position where detached one sit but don't
> NULL out last position. We expect to synchronize the datapath through
> tun->numqueues. Unfortunately, this won't work since we're lacking
> sufficient mechanism to order or synchronize the access to
> tun->numqueues.
>
> To fix this, NULL out the last position during detaching and check
> RCU protected tfile against NULL instead of checking tun->numqueues in
> datapath.
>
> Cc: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
> Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> Cc: weiyongjun (A) <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
> Fixes: c8d68e6be1c3b ("tuntap: multiqueue support")
> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> ---
> Changes from V1:
> - keep the check in tun_xdp_xmit()
> ---
> drivers/net/tun.c | 8 +++++++-
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
> index e9ca1c0..32a0b23 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
> @@ -700,6 +700,8 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
> ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
> ntfile->queue_index = index;
> + rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1],
> + NULL);
>
> --tun->numqueues;
> if (clean) {
> @@ -1082,7 +1084,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t tun_net_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
> tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[txq]);
>
> /* Drop packet if interface is not attached */
> - if (txq >= tun->numqueues)
> + if (!tfile)
> goto drop;
>
> if (!rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog))
Hmm don't we need to range check txq?
> @@ -1313,6 +1315,10 @@ static int tun_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, int n,
>
> tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[smp_processor_id() %
> numqueues]);
> + if (!tfile) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return -ENXIO; /* Caller will free/return all frames */
> + }
>
> spin_lock(&tfile->tx_ring.producer_lock);
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> --
> 1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-08 4:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2019-05-08 4:30 ` Jason Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-05-08 4:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael S. Tsirkin
Cc: netdev, YueHaibing, Cong Wang, weiyongjun (A), Eric Dumazet
On 2019/5/8 下午12:16, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 12:03:36AM -0400, Jason Wang wrote:
>> When a queue(tfile) is detached through __tun_detach(), we move the
>> last enabled tfile to the position where detached one sit but don't
>> NULL out last position. We expect to synchronize the datapath through
>> tun->numqueues. Unfortunately, this won't work since we're lacking
>> sufficient mechanism to order or synchronize the access to
>> tun->numqueues.
>>
>> To fix this, NULL out the last position during detaching and check
>> RCU protected tfile against NULL instead of checking tun->numqueues in
>> datapath.
>>
>> Cc: YueHaibing <yuehaibing@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
>> Cc: weiyongjun (A) <weiyongjun1@huawei.com>
>> Cc: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
>> Fixes: c8d68e6be1c3b ("tuntap: multiqueue support")
>> Signed-off-by: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> Changes from V1:
>> - keep the check in tun_xdp_xmit()
>> ---
>> drivers/net/tun.c | 8 +++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/tun.c b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> index e9ca1c0..32a0b23 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/tun.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/tun.c
>> @@ -700,6 +700,8 @@ static void __tun_detach(struct tun_file *tfile, bool clean)
>> tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1]);
>> ntfile = rtnl_dereference(tun->tfiles[index]);
>> ntfile->queue_index = index;
>> + rcu_assign_pointer(tun->tfiles[tun->numqueues - 1],
>> + NULL);
>>
>> --tun->numqueues;
>> if (clean) {
>> @@ -1082,7 +1084,7 @@ static netdev_tx_t tun_net_xmit(struct sk_buff *skb, struct net_device *dev)
>> tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[txq]);
>>
>> /* Drop packet if interface is not attached */
>> - if (txq >= tun->numqueues)
>> + if (!tfile)
>> goto drop;
>>
>> if (!rcu_dereference(tun->steering_prog))
> Hmm don't we need to range check txq?
Looks not since tun_select_queue will always return a value which is
less than MAX_TAP_QUEUES. And we NULL out the last enabled queue in
tun_detach().
Thanks
>
>
>> @@ -1313,6 +1315,10 @@ static int tun_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, int n,
>>
>> tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[smp_processor_id() %
>> numqueues]);
>> + if (!tfile) {
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return -ENXIO; /* Caller will free/return all frames */
>> + }
>>
>> spin_lock(&tfile->tx_ring.producer_lock);
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
>> --
>> 1.8.3.1
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-07 4:03 [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues Jason Wang
2019-05-07 4:54 ` Cong Wang
2019-05-08 4:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
@ 2019-05-08 17:36 ` David Miller
2019-05-09 3:16 ` Jason Wang
2 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: David Miller @ 2019-05-08 17:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jasowang
Cc: netdev, mst, yuehaibing, xiyou.wangcong, weiyongjun1, eric.dumazet
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 00:03:36 -0400
> @@ -1313,6 +1315,10 @@ static int tun_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, int n,
>
> tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[smp_processor_id() %
> numqueues]);
> + if (!tfile) {
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> + return -ENXIO; /* Caller will free/return all frames */
> + }
>
> spin_lock(&tfile->tx_ring.producer_lock);
> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
The only way we can see a NULL here is if a detach happened in parallel,
and if that happens we should retry the tfile[] indexing after resampling
numqueues rather than dropping the packet.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-08 17:36 ` David Miller
@ 2019-05-09 3:16 ` Jason Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-05-09 3:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: David Miller
Cc: netdev, mst, yuehaibing, xiyou.wangcong, weiyongjun1, eric.dumazet
On 2019/5/9 上午1:36, David Miller wrote:
> From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
> Date: Tue, 7 May 2019 00:03:36 -0400
>
>> @@ -1313,6 +1315,10 @@ static int tun_xdp_xmit(struct net_device *dev, int n,
>>
>> tfile = rcu_dereference(tun->tfiles[smp_processor_id() %
>> numqueues]);
>> + if (!tfile) {
>> + rcu_read_unlock();
>> + return -ENXIO; /* Caller will free/return all frames */
>> + }
>>
>> spin_lock(&tfile->tx_ring.producer_lock);
>> for (i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> The only way we can see a NULL here is if a detach happened in parallel,
> and if that happens we should retry the tfile[] indexing after resampling
> numqueues rather than dropping the packet.
Ok, will fix this in V3.
Thanks
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-08 2:54 ` Jason Wang
@ 2019-05-09 5:34 ` Cong Wang
2019-05-09 12:55 ` Jason Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread
From: Cong Wang @ 2019-05-09 5:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jason Wang
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers, Michael S. Tsirkin, YueHaibing,
weiyongjun (A),
Eric Dumazet
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 7:54 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
> This is only true if you can make sure tfile[tun->numqueues] is not
> freed. Either my patch or SOCK_RCU_FREE can solve this, but for
> SOCK_RCU_FREE we need do extra careful audit to make sure it doesn't
> break someting. So synchronize through pointers in tfiles[] which is
> already protected by RCU is much more easier. It can make sure no
> dereference from xmit path after synchornize_net(). And this matches the
> assumptions of the codes after synchronize_net().
>
It is hard to tell which sock_put() matches with this synchronize_net()
given the call path is complicated.
With SOCK_RCU_FREE, no such a problem, all sock_put() will be safe.
So to me SOCK_RCU_FREE is much easier to understand and audit.
Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues
2019-05-09 5:34 ` Cong Wang
@ 2019-05-09 12:55 ` Jason Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Jason Wang @ 2019-05-09 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Cong Wang
Cc: Linux Kernel Network Developers, Michael S. Tsirkin, YueHaibing,
weiyongjun (A),
Eric Dumazet
On 2019/5/9 下午1:34, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 7:54 PM Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com> wrote:
>> This is only true if you can make sure tfile[tun->numqueues] is not
>> freed. Either my patch or SOCK_RCU_FREE can solve this, but for
>> SOCK_RCU_FREE we need do extra careful audit to make sure it doesn't
>> break someting. So synchronize through pointers in tfiles[] which is
>> already protected by RCU is much more easier. It can make sure no
>> dereference from xmit path after synchornize_net(). And this matches the
>> assumptions of the codes after synchronize_net().
>>
> It is hard to tell which sock_put() matches with this synchronize_net()
> given the call path is complicated.
>
> With SOCK_RCU_FREE, no such a problem, all sock_put() will be safe.
> So to me SOCK_RCU_FREE is much easier to understand and audit.
The problem is not tfile itself but the data structure associated. As I
mentioned earlier, the xdp_rxq_info_unreg() looks racy if tun_net_xmit()
can read stale value of numqueues. It's just one example, we may meet
similar issues in the future when adding more features.
Thanks
>
> Thanks.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-05-09 12:55 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-05-07 4:03 [PATCH net V2] tuntap: synchronize through tfiles array instead of tun->numqueues Jason Wang
2019-05-07 4:54 ` Cong Wang
2019-05-07 6:19 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-07 14:41 ` Cong Wang
2019-05-08 2:54 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-09 5:34 ` Cong Wang
2019-05-09 12:55 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-08 4:16 ` Michael S. Tsirkin
2019-05-08 4:30 ` Jason Wang
2019-05-08 17:36 ` David Miller
2019-05-09 3:16 ` Jason Wang
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.