[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <10345.1200677564@death>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2008 09:32:44 -0800
From: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>
To: Krzysztof Oledzki <olel@....pl>
cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, davem@...emloft.net,
jeff@...zik.org, shemminger@...ux-foundation.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>
Subject: Re: [patch for 2.6.24? 1/1] bonding: locking fix
Krzysztof Oledzki <olel@....pl> wrote:
[...]
>> which makes the warning go away, but Herbert Xu pointed out that
>> there is a potential problem with bond_enslave accessing the mc_lists
>> without sufficient locking. It's not the only offender, either, and the
>> bond->mc_list references really need to be protected by the bond_lock,
>> and the whole thing probably ought to use dev_mc_sync/unsync instead of
>> what it does now.
>>
>> Since the bond_enslave, et al, business isn't a new problem, and
>> I've never heard of it being hit, I'm thinking now to just leave the
>> bond_enslave part for 2.6.25, and fix the lockdep warning for 2.6.24.
>
>It is a new problem, as it never happened with <=2.6.23.
The lockdep warning is new, but I was referring to the lack of
mutexing between bond_enslave, bond_release, etc and the
set_multicast_list's use of the mc_lists. There has never been mutexing
of the mc_lists in bond_enslave & friends, so that is not a new problem.
-J
---
-Jay Vosburgh, IBM Linux Technology Center, fubar@...ibm.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists