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: <201003101430.06736.arnd@arndb.de>
Date:	Wed, 10 Mar 2010 14:30:06 +0100
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Cc:	Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
	"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 Wednesday 10 March 2010, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > When rt_hash_table[h].chain gets the __rcu_bh annotation, we'd have to
> > turn first rcu_dereference into rcu_dereference_bh in order to have a clean
> > build with sparse. Would that change be
> > a) correct from RCU perspective,
> > b) desirable for code inspection, and
> > c) lockdep-clean?
> 
> I have a patch queued up that will make rcu_dereference_bh() handle this
> correctly -- current -tip and mainline would complain.  Please see below
> for a sneak preview.
> 
> Thoughts?

Ok, so that would mean we can convert it all to rcu_dereference_bh().
I guess an alternative to this would be to also change the rcu_read_lock()
inside local_bh_disable() sections to rcu_read_lock_bh(), which is not
necessary but also not harmful, right?

	Arnd
--
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