[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aa79d98a0910192217x2a9bb142r114ae2fa633e3bd2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 09:17:59 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Michal Ostrowski <mostrows@...il.com>,
Denys Fedoryschenko <denys@...p.net.lb>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, linux-ppp@...r.kernel.org,
paulus@...ba.org, mostrows@...thlink.net
Subject: Re: kernel panic in latest vanilla stable, while using nameif with
"alive" pppoe interfaces
On 10/20/09, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> Cyrill Gorcunov a écrit :
>> On 10/20/09, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
>>> Michal Ostrowski a écrit :
>>>> Access of po->pppoe_dev is guarded by sk->sk_state & PPPOX_CONNECTED,
>>>> and all use cases now rely on the socket lock. Because of this, the
>>>> ref-count on the namespace held by the socket object suffices to hold
>>>> the namespace in existence and so we don't need to ref-count the
>>>> namespace in PPPoE. The flush_lock is gone.
>>>>
>>> Seems good !
>>>
>>> But can we use lock_sock() in __pppoe_xmit() context ?
>>>
>>
>> Eric, most probably i miss something, but how lock sock protect us
>> from mtu changed via sysfs. This action calls change mtu notifier
>> which doesn't care about sockets at all...
>
> This ultimately calls pppoe_flush_dev() and this function
> takes care of taking appropriate sock_locks() on each sockets ?
>
This hold and lock socks but set pppoe_dev to null as well. I'll back
later. And i need to reread the code.
--
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