linux-kernel - Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <540615A5.4070902@gmail.com>
Date:	Tue, 02 Sep 2014 15:08:21 -0400
From:	Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
To:	Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>,
	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
CC:	Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
	James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
	Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
	Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
	netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, trinity@...r.kernel.org,
	Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)

On 09/02/2014 02:15 PM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2014-09-02 at 11:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
>>
>>>> I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted
>>>> a minimal patch for stable because I didn't check history where and when
>>>> additional users of dev_get_by_flags_rcu were removed.
>>>
>>> `git grep` should show you we only have one caller. Apparently we don't
>>> care about any out-of-tree module.
>>
>> Point is : you did not check if some stable versions had more callers.
>>
>> Its very nice you checked current version, but it is not enough for a
>> stable candidate.
> 
> That is what we do when backporting patches, I can do that if David asks
> me to backport it, but you know for netdev that is David's work.
> 
> (I am not saying I don't want to help him, I just want to point out the fact.
> I am very pleased to help David for stable backports as long as he asks)

Instead of helping after the fact, why not arrange the patches so that it's
not such a big issue.  Leave the _rcu variant alone.  Add an _rtnl variant
of the function and use that in the patch.  Have a follow-on patch that
removes the _rcu variant all by itself.  This way backports become easier,
and if anyone wants the _rcu variant back, all they have to do is revert
a very simple commit.

-vlad

--
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/