[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100106091007.3fcc7d9b@nehalam>
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:10:07 -0800
From: Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
To: paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc: Flavio Leitner <fleitner@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
David Stevens <dlstevens@...ibm.com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] igmp: fix ip_mc_sf_allow race [v3]
On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 08:40:27 -0800
"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> > - if (inet->mc_list == NULL)
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + if (rcu_dereference(inet->mc_list) == NULL) {
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > return;
> > + }
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> I don't understand what rcu_read_lock() is protecting here. The
> test is still unstable -- just after finding inet->mc_list non-NULL,
> ip_mc_leave_group() might cause it to become NULL.
>
> Is there a need to protect sock_net(sk)? (I don't believe so, but then
> again, I don't claim to understand locking in Linux networking.)
> If there is no need, it should be possible to drop the rcu_read_lock(),
> rcu_read_unlock(), and rcu_dereference() above. (You might want them
> for documentation purposes, as they aren't hurting anything, just
> wondering what the intent is.)
I think code is trying to avoid looking at mc_list if no multicast
addresses. But it is an unsafe check.
If mc_list was just converted to list_head this would all be clearer
--
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