[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <8070c296-5767-6783-c34e-14112b2b412e@arista.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2019 23:27:42 +0000
From: Dmitry Safonov <dima@...sta.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: 0x7f454c46@...il.com, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Florian Westphal <fw@...len.de>,
Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rtnetlink: Synchronze net in rtnl_unregister()
On 2/25/19 11:21 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> On 2/25/19 11:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On 02/25/2019 01:27 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>>> While it's possible to document that rtnl_unregister() requires
>>> synchronize_net() afterwards - unlike rtnl_unregister_all(), I believe
>>> the module exit is very much slow-path.
>>
>> rtnl_unregister_all() needs the sychronize_rcu() at this moment
>> because of the kfree(tab), not because of the kfree_rcu(link, rcu);
>
> I may be wrong here, but shouldn't we wait for grace period to elapse by
> the reason that rtnl_msg_handlers are protected by RCU, not only by rtnl?
> Like, without synchronize_net() in rtnl_unregister() - what prevents
> module exit race to say, rtnetlink_rcv_msg()=>rtnl_get_link()?
There is synchronize_rcu() in free_module() - but I believe it's a bit
too far in unloading. Maybe, I'm missing another call on the way.
Thanks,
Dmitry
Powered by blists - more mailing lists