[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130720104746.GC9149@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jul 2013 12:47:46 +0200
From: Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...hat.com>
To: dingtianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
Cc: Jay Vosburgh <fubar@...ibm.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [3/4] bonding: the calling of bond->slave_cnt need protection
On Sat, Jul 20, 2013 at 03:23:57PM +0800, dingtianhong wrote:
>The bonding_store_mode has rtnl protection, so no need to get read lock
>for bond->slave_cnt, but the bonding_store_fail_over_mac need to protect
>the bond->slave_cnt, so add read_lock().
>
>Signed-off-by: Ding Tianhong <dingtianhong@...wei.com>
>
>---
>drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
>diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>index dc36a3d..d01a189 100644
>--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
>@@ -504,11 +504,14 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_fail_over_mac(struct device *d,
> int new_value;
> struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
>
>+ read_lock(&bond->lock);
> if (bond->slave_cnt != 0) {
> pr_err("%s: Can't alter fail_over_mac with slaves in bond.\n",
> bond->dev->name);
>+ read_unlock(&bond->lock);
> return -EPERM;
> }
>+ read_unlock(&bond->lock);
Maybe it's Saturday, but I really don't see *any* point in this locking.
I think you've meant that we need the rtnl protection while reading
slave_cnt AND updating the .fail_over_mac, so that in between we won't add
new slaves with outdated params.
Something like this (untested):
diff --git a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
index dc36a3d..8a5a6a3 100644
--- a/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
+++ b/drivers/net/bonding/bond_sysfs.c
@@ -501,20 +501,25 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_fail_over_mac(struct device *d,
struct device_attribute *attr,
const char *buf, size_t count)
{
- int new_value;
+ int new_value, ret = count;
struct bonding *bond = to_bond(d);
+ if (!rtnl_trylock())
+ return restart_syscall();
+
if (bond->slave_cnt != 0) {
pr_err("%s: Can't alter fail_over_mac with slaves in bond.\n",
bond->dev->name);
- return -EPERM;
+ ret = -EPERM;
+ goto out;
}
new_value = bond_parse_parm(buf, fail_over_mac_tbl);
if (new_value < 0) {
pr_err("%s: Ignoring invalid fail_over_mac value %s.\n",
bond->dev->name, buf);
- return -EINVAL;
+ ret = -EINVAL;
+ goto out;
}
bond->params.fail_over_mac = new_value;
@@ -522,7 +527,9 @@ static ssize_t bonding_store_fail_over_mac(struct device *d,
bond->dev->name, fail_over_mac_tbl[new_value].modename,
new_value);
- return count;
+out:
+ rtnl_unlock();
+ return ret;
}
static DEVICE_ATTR(fail_over_mac, S_IRUGO | S_IWUSR,
>
> new_value = bond_parse_parm(buf, fail_over_mac_tbl);
> if (new_value < 0) {
--
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