[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150325143607.GA27413@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 07:36:07 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Patrick Marlier <patrick.marlier@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] netfilter: fix list_entry_rcu usage.
On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:31:44AM +0100, Patrick Marlier wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Patrick Marlier <patrick.marlier@...il.com>
> ---
> net/netfilter/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/netfilter/core.c b/net/netfilter/core.c
> index fea9ef5..05bd311 100644
> --- a/net/netfilter/core.c
> +++ b/net/netfilter/core.c
> @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ int nf_hook_slow(u_int8_t pf, unsigned int hook,
> struct sk_buff *skb,
> /* We may already have this, but read-locks nest anyway */
> rcu_read_lock();
>
> - elem = list_entry_rcu(&nf_hooks[pf][hook], struct nf_hook_ops, list);
> + elem = list_entry_rcu(nf_hooks[pf][hook].next, struct nf_hook_ops, list);
And this departs from the list_entry() API. Is this really a good idea?
Thanx, Paul
> next_hook:
> verdict = nf_iterate(&nf_hooks[pf][hook], skb, hook, indev,
> outdev, &elem, okfn, hook_thresh);
> --
> 2.1.0
>
> --
> 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/
--
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