[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130522130030.GB3431@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 22 May 2013 06:00:30 -0700
From: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: Roman Gushchin <klamm@...dex-team.ru>,
Dipankar Sarma <dipankar@...ibm.com>, zhmurov@...dex-team.ru,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@....inr.ac.ru>,
James Morris <jmorris@...ei.org>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
Patrick McHardy <kaber@...sh.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rcu: fix a race in hlist_nulls_for_each_entry_rcu
macro
On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 05:28:47AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Wed, 2013-05-22 at 02:58 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
>
> > Now that I am more awake...
> >
> > The RCU list macros assume that the list header is either statically
> > allocated (in which case no ACCESS_ONCE() or whatever is needed) or
> > that the caller did whatever was necessary to protect the list header,
> > whether that be holding the right lock, using rcu_dereference() when
> > traversing the pointer to the list header, or whatever.
>
> Not sure what you mean, we do hold rcu_read_lock() here.
>
> But when we jump back to begin, we do not do
> "rcu_read_unlock()/rcu_read_lock()" pair.
Right, rcu_read_lock() is part of the protection, but rcu_dereference()
is the other part.
All that aside, I can't claim that I understand what problem the various
patches would solve. ;-)
Thanx, Paul
--
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