[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20161020.140300.122827393647670926.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 14:03:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: vkuznets@...hat.com
Cc: sthemmin@...rosoft.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kys@...rosoft.com, haiyangz@...rosoft.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] hv_netvsc: fix a race between netvsc_send()
and netvsc_init_buf()
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2016 10:51:04 +0200
> Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@...rosoft.com> writes:
>
>> Do we need ACCESS_ONCE() here to avoid check/use issues?
>>
>
> I think we don't: this is the only place in the function where we read
> the variable so we'll get normal read. We're not trying to syncronize
> with netvsc_init_buf() as that would require locking, if we read stale
> NULL value after it was already updated on a different CPU we're fine,
> we'll just return -EAGAIN.
The concern is if we race with netvsc_destroy_buf() and this pointer
becomes NULL after the test you are adding.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists