[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1291219386.2856.924.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 17:03:06 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"Pekka Savola (ipv6)" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch] net: kill an RCU warning in inet_fill_link_af()
Le mercredi 01 décembre 2010 à 19:14 +0800, Amerigo Wang a écrit :
> From: WANG Cong <amwang@...hat.com>
>
> The latest net-next-2.6 triggers an RCU warning during boot,
> lockdep complains that in inet_fill_link_af() we call rcu_dereference_check()
> without rcu_read_lock() protection.
>
> This patch fixes it by replacing __in_dev_get_rcu() with in_dev_get().
Here is a better version, thanks a lot for your report and initial
patch.
[PATCH net-next-2.6] net: kill an RCU warning in inet_fill_link_af()
commits 9f0f7272 (ipv4: AF_INET link address family) and cf7afbfeb8c
(rtnl: make link af-specific updates atomic) used incorrect
__in_dev_get_rcu() in RTNL protected contexts, triggering PROVE_RCU
warnings.
Switch to __in_dev_get_rtnl(), wich is more appropriate, since we hold
RTNL.
Based on a report and initial patch from Amerigo Wang.
Reported-by: Amerigo Wang <amwang@...hat.com>
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...radead.org>
---
net/ipv4/devinet.c | 8 ++++----
1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/ipv4/devinet.c b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
index d9f71ba..3b06770 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/devinet.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/devinet.c
@@ -1258,7 +1258,7 @@ errout:
static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev)
{
- struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev);
+ struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
if (!in_dev)
return 0;
@@ -1268,7 +1268,7 @@ static size_t inet_get_link_af_size(const struct net_device *dev)
static int inet_fill_link_af(struct sk_buff *skb, const struct net_device *dev)
{
- struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev);
+ struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
struct nlattr *nla;
int i;
@@ -1295,7 +1295,7 @@ static int inet_validate_link_af(const struct net_device *dev,
struct nlattr *a, *tb[IFLA_INET_MAX+1];
int err, rem;
- if (dev && !__in_dev_get_rcu(dev))
+ if (dev && !__in_dev_get_rtnl(dev))
return -EAFNOSUPPORT;
err = nla_parse_nested(tb, IFLA_INET_MAX, nla, inet_af_policy);
@@ -1319,7 +1319,7 @@ static int inet_validate_link_af(const struct net_device *dev,
static int inet_set_link_af(struct net_device *dev, const struct nlattr *nla)
{
- struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rcu(dev);
+ struct in_device *in_dev = __in_dev_get_rtnl(dev);
struct nlattr *a, *tb[IFLA_INET_MAX+1];
int rem;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists