[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4D6D52F1.6020407@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 21:11:29 +0100
From: Nicolas de Pesloüan
<nicolas.2p.debian@...il.com>
To: Changli Gao <xiaosuo@...il.com>
CC: Jiri Pirko <jpirko@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, fubar@...ibm.com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
andy@...yhouse.net
Subject: Re: [patch net-next-2.6] bonding: remove skb_share_check in handle_frame
Le 01/03/2011 16:12, Changli Gao a écrit :
> On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Jiri Pirko<jpirko@...hat.com> wrote:
>> Unapplicable, sorry (wrong branch :(). Here's corrected patch:
>>
>> Subject: [PATCH net-next-2.6 v2] bonding: remove skb_share_check in handle_frame
>>
>> No need to do share check here.
>>
>
> I don't think so. Although you avoid netif_rx(), you can't avoid
> ptype_all handlers. In fact, all the RX handlers should has this
> check(), if they may modify the skb.
Can you please develop your explanation?
In current __netif_receive_skb() (after the recent patch from Jiri), we deliver the skb to ptype_all
handlers inside a loop, while possibly changing skb->dev inside this loop.
Then, at the end of __netif_receive_skb(), we loop on ptype_base, without changing anything in skb.
Should we consider ptype_*->func() to be called in a pure sequential way? Should we consider that
when a ptype_*->func() returns, nothing from this handler will use the skb in anyway later, in a
parallel way?
Or should we, instead, consider that special precautions must be taken, because protocol handlers
may run in parallel for the same skb? Which kind of precautions?
Thanks.
Nicolas.
--
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