[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1416586364.8629.104.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 08:12:44 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Cc: Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@...filter.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Jozsef Kadlecsik <kadlec@...ckhole.kfki.hu>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
netfilter-devel@...r.kernel.org, coreteam@...filter.org,
"open list:NETWORKING [IPv4/..." <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 9/9] netfilter: Replace smp_read_barrier_depends()
with lockless_dereference()
On Fri, 2014-11-21 at 10:06 -0500, Pranith Kumar wrote:
> Recently lockless_dereference() was added which can be used in place of
> hard-coding smp_read_barrier_depends(). The following PATCH makes the change.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c | 3 +--
> net/ipv4/netfilter/ip_tables.c | 3 +--
> net/ipv6/netfilter/ip6_tables.c | 3 +--
> 3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
> index f95b6f9..fc7533d 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/netfilter/arp_tables.c
> @@ -270,12 +270,11 @@ unsigned int arpt_do_table(struct sk_buff *skb,
>
> local_bh_disable();
> addend = xt_write_recseq_begin();
> - private = table->private;
> /*
> * Ensure we load private-> members after we've fetched the base
> * pointer.
> */
> - smp_read_barrier_depends();
> + private = lockless_dereference(table->private);
> table_base = private->entries[smp_processor_id()];
>
Please carefully read the code, before and after your change, then
you'll see this change broke the code.
Problem is that a bug like that can be really hard to diagnose and fix
later, so really you have to be very careful doing these mechanical
changes.
IMO, current code+comment is better than with this
lockless_dereference() which in this particular case obfuscates the
code. more than anything.
In this case we do have a lock (sort of), so lockless_dereference() is
quite misleading.
--
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