[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <50324EBC.9060804@parallels.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2012 18:50:36 +0400
From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] packet: Protect packet sk list with mutex
In patch eea68e2f (packet: Report socket mclist info via diag module) I've
introduced a "scheduling in atomic" problem in packet diag module -- the
socket list is traversed under rcu_read_lock() while performed under it sk
mclist access requires rtnl lock (i.e. -- mutex) to be taken. Similar thing
was then re-introduced by further packet diag patches (fanount mutex and
pgvec mutex for rings) :(
Apart from being terribly sorry for the above, I propose to change the
packet sk list protection from spinlock to mutex. This lock currently
protects only the sklist modifications (that already happen in sleeping
context) and nothing more.
Am I wrong again and a fine-grained atomic locking is required for
everything that is reported by packet diag instead?
Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...allels.com>
---
diff --git a/include/net/netns/packet.h b/include/net/netns/packet.h
index cb4e894..4780b08 100644
--- a/include/net/netns/packet.h
+++ b/include/net/netns/packet.h
@@ -8,7 +8,7 @@
#include <linux/spinlock.h>
struct netns_packet {
- spinlock_t sklist_lock;
+ struct mutex sklist_lock;
struct hlist_head sklist;
};
diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net/packet/af_packet.c
index 226b2cd..5048672 100644
--- a/net/packet/af_packet.c
+++ b/net/packet/af_packet.c
@@ -2308,10 +2308,10 @@ static int packet_release(struct socket *sock)
net = sock_net(sk);
po = pkt_sk(sk);
- spin_lock_bh(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
+ mutex_lock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
sk_del_node_init_rcu(sk);
sock_prot_inuse_add(net, sk->sk_prot, -1);
- spin_unlock_bh(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
+ mutex_unlock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
spin_lock(&po->bind_lock);
unregister_prot_hook(sk, false);
@@ -2510,10 +2510,10 @@ static int packet_create(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int protocol,
register_prot_hook(sk);
}
- spin_lock_bh(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
+ mutex_lock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
sk_add_node_rcu(sk, &net->packet.sklist);
sock_prot_inuse_add(net, &packet_proto, 1);
- spin_unlock_bh(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
+ mutex_unlock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
return 0;
out:
@@ -3766,7 +3766,7 @@ static const struct file_operations packet_seq_fops = {
static int __net_init packet_net_init(struct net *net)
{
- spin_lock_init(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
+ mutex_init(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
INIT_HLIST_HEAD(&net->packet.sklist);
if (!proc_net_fops_create(net, "packet", 0, &packet_seq_fops))
diff --git a/net/packet/diag.c b/net/packet/diag.c
index bc33fbe..39bce0d 100644
--- a/net/packet/diag.c
+++ b/net/packet/diag.c
@@ -177,8 +177,8 @@ static int packet_diag_dump(struct sk_buff *skb, struct netlink_callback *cb)
net = sock_net(skb->sk);
req = nlmsg_data(cb->nlh);
- rcu_read_lock();
- sk_for_each_rcu(sk, node, &net->packet.sklist) {
+ mutex_lock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
+ sk_for_each(sk, node, &net->packet.sklist) {
if (!net_eq(sock_net(sk), net))
continue;
if (num < s_num)
@@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ next:
num++;
}
done:
- rcu_read_unlock();
+ mutex_unlock(&net->packet.sklist_lock);
cb->args[0] = num;
return skb->len;
--
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