[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <201006071344.o57DiiCx018593@thirdoffive.cmf.nrl.navy.mil>
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2010 09:44:44 -0400
From: "Chas Williams (CONTRACTOR)" <chas@....nrl.navy.mil>
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>
cc: linux-atm-general@...ts.sourceforge.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Linux-ATM-General] RX/close vcc race with solos/atmtcp/usbatm/he
In message <1274872584.20576.13579.camel@...book.infradead.org>,David Woodhouse
writes:
>The problem is that the 'find_vcc' functions in these drivers are
>returning a vcc with the ATM_VF_READY bit cleared, because it's already
>in the process of being destroyed. If we fix that simple oversight,
>there's still a race condition because the socket can still be closed
>(and completely freed, afaict) between our call to find_vcc() and our
>call to vcc->push() in the RX tasklet.
...
>Can anyone see a better approach -- short of rewriting the whole ATM
>layer to make the locking saner?
vcc's are really sockets, so you could just increase the refcount --
sock_hold(). after you push the packet, drop the refcount, sock_put()
and hopefully things will be well. however, i think the close routines
dont really expect this behavior so the card driver's vcc close might
need to be changed to wait around if the refcount on the vcc is > 1.
or perhaps the driver independent part needs to do this.
the he driver works around this issue by holding vcc_sklist_lock around
the find_vcc and ->push() which happen to occur in the same tasklet.
--
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