[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHA+R7Mwy1SCpEUgGf9BdLEro6N-3t89KU=xL0iuzgOppXELrQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 11:04:38 -0700
From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
Cc: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@...il.com>,
"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>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, trinity@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699)
On Tue, Sep 2, 2014 at 10:58 AM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
<hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
> Hi Cong,
>
> On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
>> <hannes@...essinduktion.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need
>> > to change dev_get_by_flags, but as this is the only user it sure is
>> > possible. RCU locked version is just easier composeable, so I wouldn't
>> > touch that if needed in future, just also take rcu lock as before.
>>
>> There is no point to keep RCU read lock if we have rtnl lock,
>> I don't know why you don't want to change dev_get_by_flags(),
>> it is pretty easy to do since it only has one caller.
>
> I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted
> a minimal patch for stable because I didn't check history where and when
> additional users of dev_get_by_flags_rcu were removed.
`git grep` should show you we only have one caller. Apparently we don't
care about any out-of-tree module.
>
>> Even if you really need RCU in future, you are always welcome
>> to bring it back when you do, sorry we should never be blocked by
>> code NOT merged yet.
>>
>> >
>> > Also we should move ASSERT_RTNL checks from addrconf_join_solict to
>> > ipv6_dev_mc_inc/dec.
>> >
>>
>> Make it another patch.
>
> It is just one logical change, moving ASSERT_RTNLs to places where they
> better catch invalid callstacks.
>
Conflicts with what you claimed above. :)
--
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