[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49ABC157.4090801@trash.net>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 12:21:59 +0100
From: Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
To: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
CC: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>
Subject: Re: IPv4/IPv6 sysctl unregistration deadlock
Patrick McHardy wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> @@ -77,7 +77,9 @@ static ssize_t netdev_store(struct devic
>>>> if (endp == buf)
>>>> goto err;
>>>>
>>>> - rtnl_lock();
>>>> + if (!rtnl_trylock())
>>>> + return -ERESTARTSYS;
>>>> +
>>>> if (dev_isalive(net)) {
>>>> if ((ret = (*set)(net, new)) == 0)
>>>> ret = len;
>>> I can test this to see if it fixes my problem. Are the above lines the
>>> entirety of the patch?
>>
>> yes
>
> We should be able to avoid the restart looping in most cases,
> we only need to do this while unregistration is in progress.
It doesn't seem to work. The idea was something like this:
static int addrconf_fixup_forwarding(struct ctl_table *table, int *p,
int old)
{
struct inet6_dev *idev;
struct net *net;
net = (struct net *)table->extra2;
if (p == &net->ipv6.devconf_dflt->forwarding)
return 0;
/* Unregistration in progress */
idev = table->extra1;
if (idev->cnf.sysctl == NULL)
return -ERESTARTSYS;
rtnl_lock();
...
but the process might have entered this function while the rtnl
is already held, but the unregistration hasn't been triggered yet.
So it would still deadlock.
--
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