Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 2 Oct 2003 01:52:28 +0200 | From | Erlend Aasland <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH CIFS] use CryptoAPI MD4/MD5 |
| |
Hi Matt,
Thanks for your replies and suggestions.
On 10/01/03 18:42, Matt Mackall wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:26:50AM +0200, Erlend Aasland wrote: > > On 10/01/03 14:55, Matt Mackall wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 03:30:39PM +0200, Erlend Aasland wrote: > > > > static int cifs_calculate_signature(const struct smb_hdr * cifs_pdu, const char * key, char * signature) > > > [...] > > > Eek. How often does this get called? > > It is (normally) called twice in SendReceive(). SendReceive() is called > > very often in cifs. After a quick look at cifs, it seems that most of > > these calls are protected with a per connection-lock (correct me if I'm > > wrong). But since two connections can call SendReceive() at the same > > time, we have to protect the tfm with locks. Correct? > Correct. But this lock is going to be a huge bottleneck. Yes, I should have thought about this in the first place :-)
> > Would a better solution be to allocate one tfm per connection, thus > > no need to protect the tfm with a dedicated lock, right? > Per connection sounds like a much better answer, assuming you can > guarantee that SendReceive() never gets called simultaneously on the > same connection. I will do this and try to trace each SendReceive() call, verifying that this is a safe solution.
Regards Erlend Aasland - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |