[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150109105516.GA1600@casper.infradead.org>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2015 10:55:16 +0000
From: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>
To: Ying Xue <ying.xue@...driver.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/3] netlink: eliminate nl_sk_hash_lock
On 01/09/15 at 04:23pm, Ying Xue wrote:
> static struct sock *netlink_lookup(struct net *net, int protocol, u32 portid)
> {
> struct netlink_table *table = &nl_table[protocol];
> @@ -1041,41 +1050,33 @@ netlink_update_listeners(struct sock *sk)
> static int netlink_insert(struct sock *sk, struct net *net, u32 portid)
> {
> struct netlink_table *table = &nl_table[sk->sk_protocol];
> - int err = -EADDRINUSE;
> -
> - mutex_lock(&nl_sk_hash_lock);
> - if (__netlink_lookup(table, portid, net))
> - goto err;
>
> - err = -EBUSY;
> if (nlk_sk(sk)->portid)
> - goto err;
> + return -EBUSY;
>
> - err = -ENOMEM;
> if (BITS_PER_LONG > 32 &&
> unlikely(atomic_read(&table->hash.nelems) >= UINT_MAX))
> - goto err;
> + return -ENOMEM;
>
> nlk_sk(sk)->portid = portid;
Since this code can now run in parallel, there is a race between
checking portid and then setting it. CPU#1 could overwrite portid after
CPU#0 has already checked portid, this would then insert the socket on
CPU#0 with the portid created on CPU#1. So this would need some kind
of atomic operation.
--
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