[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1340310469.4604.6702.camel@edumazet-glaptop>
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2012 22:27:49 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Josh Hunt <johunt@...mai.com>
Cc: "davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
Debabrata Banerjee <dbavatar@...il.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org" <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
"jmorris@...ei.org" <jmorris@...ei.org>,
"pekkas@...core.fi" <pekkas@...core.fi>,
"kuznet@....inr.ac.ru" <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Bug in net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c:fib6_dump_table()
On Thu, 2012-06-21 at 14:35 -0500, Josh Hunt wrote:
> Can anyone provide details of the crash which was intended to be fixed
> by 2bec5a369ee79576a3eea2c23863325089785a2c? With this patch in and
> doing concurrent adds/deletes and dumping the table via netlink causes
> duplicate entries to be reported. Reverting this patch causes those
> problems to go away. We can provide a more detailed test if that is
> needed, but so far our testing has been unable to reproduce the crash
> mentioned in the above commit with it reverted.
A mere revert wont be enough.
Looking at this code, it lacks proper synchronization
between tree updaters and tree walkers.
fib6_walker_lock rwlock is not enough to prevent races.
Are you willing to fix this yourself ?
--
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