[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1335553131.2775.252.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:58:51 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Benjamin Poirier <bpoirier@...e.de>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Mike Frysinger <vapier@...too.org>,
Arun Sharma <asharma@...com>, netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] netfilter: conntrack: remove RCU usage in
conntrack notifier
On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 14:28 -0400, Benjamin Poirier wrote:
> I think that the rcu usage in this code is pointless. It should either be
> removed or, if it was intended to protect against something, it ought to make
> that clear.
>
> 1) The code does not make use of the deferred deletion/wait for completion rcu
> api (ie. synchronize_rcu(), call_rcu()).
> 2) It does not benefit from the barriers implied by the rcu primitives used.
> The code deals with callback pointers. There's no need to order writes to the
> function code (!) before writes to the function pointers here.
> ---
At a first glance, this seems pretty wrong.
code can disappear under you, thats for sure.
CONFIG_NF_CT_NETLINK=m
hint : module unload contains an rcu barrier.
--
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