[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <e7606e76-8a0a-dab7-4561-f44f98d90164@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2019 10:00:28 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Jon Maloy <jon.maloy@...csson.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Chris Packham <Chris.Packham@...iedtelesis.co.nz>,
"ying.xue@...driver.com" <ying.xue@...driver.com>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: "netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<tipc-discussion@...ts.sourceforge.net>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tipc: ensure skb->lock is initialised
On 7/9/19 10:15 PM, Jon Maloy wrote:
>
> It is not only for lockdep purposes, -it is essential. But please provide details about where you see that more fixes are needed.
>
Simple fact that you detect a problem only when skb_queue_purge() is called should talk by itself.
As I stated, there are many places where the list is manipulated _without_ its spinlock being held.
You want consistency, then
- grab the spinlock all the time.
- Or do not ever use it.
Do not initialize the spinlock just in case a path will use skb_queue_purge() (instead of using __skb_queue_purge())
Powered by blists - more mailing lists