[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <538DC422.1050303@redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2014 14:48:34 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>
CC: netdev@...r.kernel.org, virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: [PULL 2/2] vhost: replace rcu with mutex
Il 02/06/2014 23:58, Eric Dumazet ha scritto:
> This looks dubious
>
> What about using kfree_rcu() instead ?
It would lead to unbound allocation from userspace.
> translate_desc() still uses rcu_read_lock(), its not clear if the mutex
> is really held.
Yes, vhost_get_vq_desc must be called with the vq mutex held.
The rcu_read_lock/unlock in translate_desc is unnecessary.
Paolo
--
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