netdev - Re: [PATCH 6/13] bridge: Add core IGMP snooping support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100310104907.GA23752@gondor.apana.org.au>
Date:	Wed, 10 Mar 2010 18:49:07 +0800
From:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
To:	Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Stephen Hemminger <shemminger@...tta.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6/13] bridge: Add core IGMP snooping support

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:39:43AM +0100, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> Its really rcu_dereference_bh() that could/should be used:
> I see no problem changing
> 
> 
>         local_bh_disable();
>         ...
>         rcu_read_lock();
>         rcu_dereference(rt_hash_table[h].chain);
>         rcu_read_unlock();
>         ...
>         local_bh_enable();

Why don't we just ignore the bh part for rcu_dereference?

After all it's call_rcu_bh and the other primitives that we really
care about.  For rcu_dereference bh should make no difference
whatsoever.

Cheers,
-- 
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
--
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