[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080624180714.GA3125@ami.dom.local>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 20:07:14 +0200
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH (regression)] Fragments: fix race between
inet_frag_find and inet_frag_secret_rebuild
Pavel Emelyanov wrote, On 06/24/2008 12:43 PM:
> The problem is that while we work w/o the inet_frags.lock even
> read-locked the secret rebuild timer may occur (on another CPU,
- since BHs are still disables in the inet_frag_find) and change
+ since BHs are still disabled in the inet_frag_find) and change
> the rnd seed for ipv4/6 fragments.
>
> It was caused by my patch fd9e63544cac30a34c951f0ec958038f0529e244
> ([INET]: Omit double hash calculations in xxx_frag_intern) late
> in the 2.6.24 kernel, so this should probably be queued to -stable.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>
>
> ---
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
> index 4ed429b..0546a0b 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_fragment.c
> @@ -192,14 +192,21 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(inet_frag_evictor);
>
> static struct inet_frag_queue *inet_frag_intern(struct netns_frags *nf,
> struct inet_frag_queue *qp_in, struct inet_frags *f,
> - unsigned int hash, void *arg)
> + void *arg)
> {
> struct inet_frag_queue *qp;
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> struct hlist_node *n;
> #endif
> + unsigned int hash;
>
> write_lock(&f->lock);
> + /*
> + * While we stayed w/o the lock other CPU could update
> + * the rnd seed, so we need to re-calculate the hash
> + * chain. Fortunatelly the qp_in can be used to get one.
> + */
> + hash = f->hashfn(qp_in);
> #ifdef CONFIG_SMP
> /* With SMP race we have to recheck hash table, because
> * such entry could be created on other cpu, while we
Maybe it's a matter of taste: since there is this "#ifdef CONFIG_SMP",
and the new comment concerns with "other CPU", why this re-calculation
isn't done only for SMP? And, btw., probably __acquires/__releases
annotations could be added with this patch.
Regards,
Jarek P.
--
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