[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120605124257.GE27795@secunet.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2012 14:42:57 +0200
From: Steffen Klassert <steffen.klassert@...unet.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] inetpeer: fix a race in inetpeer_gc_worker()
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 02:19:12PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-06-05 at 13:56 +0200, Steffen Klassert wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 11:28:27AM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
> > >
> > > commit 5faa5df1fa2024 (inetpeer: Invalidate the inetpeer tree along with
> > > the routing cache) added a race :
> > >
> > > Before freeing an inetpeer, we must respect a RCU grace period, and make
> > > sure no user will attempt to increase refcnt.
> > >
> >
> > As already mentioned in the other mail. In this case, I think
> > we can just delete the inetpeer once the refcount got zero.
> >
>
> Nope, a concurrent lookup can find an entry about to be freed.
Hm, I agree that we need rcu protection when we remove single entries
from an inetpeer tree. But in this case we invalidate the entire tree.
The first lookup after inetpeer_invalidate_tree() was invoked should
find an empty tree, base->root initialized to peer_avl_empty_rcu.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't see how a lookup should find such an
old invalidated tree.
--
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