[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120831.165438.225646535977371251.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:54:38 -0400 (EDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: proski@....org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: route.c:645 suspicious rcu_dereference_check()
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 04:50:14 -0700
> On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 13:34 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
>> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:33:07 -0700
>>
>> > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>> >
>> > [PATCH] ipv4: must use rcu protection while calling fib_lookup
>> >
>> > Following lockdep splat was reported by Pavel Roskin :
>> ...
>> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
>> > Reported-by: Pavel Roskin <proski@....org>
>>
>> Applied, thanks.
>>
>> It looks like the redirect handlers might have the same problem?
>
> Hi David
>
> Correct me if I am wrong, but redirect handlers should all run under
> rcu_read_lock() protection already.
>
> rcu_read_lock() is done in ip_local_deliver_finish() or
> ip_rt_send_redirect() for the forward path.
>
> And above of them, we also have rcu_read_lock() done in
> __netif_receive_skb()
Indeed, you're right, thanks.
--
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