[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <bf7d3043-d795-ac00-7183-59b081b19142@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Dec 2017 10:25:19 +0800
From: Jason Wang <jasowang@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: mst@...hat.com, willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com,
tom@...bertland.com, aconole@...hat.com, wexu@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next V3] tun: add eBPF based queue selection method
On 2017年12月08日 06:11, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2017-12-04 at 17:31 +0800, Jason Wang wrote:
>> This patch introduces an eBPF based queue selection method. With
>> this,
>> the policy could be offloaded to userspace completely through a new
>> ioctl TUNSETSTEERINGEBPF.
> Sorry for the delay, I see this patch was merged already.
>
> ...
>
>> static void tun_free_netdev(struct net_device *dev)
>> {
>> struct tun_struct *tun = netdev_priv(dev);
>> @@ -1996,6 +2068,9 @@ static void tun_free_netdev(struct net_device
>> *dev)
>> free_percpu(tun->pcpu_stats);
>> tun_flow_uninit(tun);
>> security_tun_dev_free_security(tun->security);
>> + rtnl_lock();
>> + __tun_set_steering_ebpf(tun, NULL);
>> + rtnl_unlock();
>> }
> I am pretty sure tun_free_netdev() (aka ->priv_destructor()) can be
> called under RTNL (say from register_netdevice())
>
> So this will dead lock badly ?
>
>
Unfortunately yes. Will switch to use spinlock (tun->lock) to
synchronize here.
Thanks
Powered by blists - more mailing lists