[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090402211606.GC4076@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2009 23:16:06 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
netfilter@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>,
Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>, coreteam@...filter.org
Subject: Re: [netfilter bug] BUG: using smp_processor_id() in preemptible
[00000000] code: ssh/9115, caller is ipt_do_table+0xc8/0x559
* Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
> * Eric Dumazet <dada1@...mosbay.com> wrote:
>
> > David put into its tree fix for that a few hours ago
> >
> > commit fa9a86ddc8ecd2830a5e773facc250f110300ae7
> >
> > (netfilter: iptables: lock free counters) forgot to disable BH
> > in arpt_do_table(), ipt_do_table() and ip6t_do_table()
> >
> > Use rcu_read_lock_bh() instead of rcu_read_lock() cures the problem.
>
> ok, got your fix (attached below), thanks Eric for the pointer.
>
> But i think my fix might be slightly better, because it does not
> manipulate the preempt counter and leaves preemption enabled.
>
> There's no BH context worries since this code did not seem to have
> BH protection before either. (it used a plain read_lock(), not
> read_lock_bh(), AFAICS)
>
> I dont see any preemption worries either. I must be missing
> something :)
as per the other mail - what i missed was that the old code _did_
use read_lock_bh(), which did not get carried over into the
rcu_read_lock().
So this fix affects basically all things netfilter, not just
rcu-preempt - a plain rcu_read_lock() doesnt protect against BH
context interaction.
Ingo
--
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