[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1427314914.3584424.245242065.67DE2EEE@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2015 21:21:54 +0100
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@...essinduktion.org>
To: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch net 2/2] ipmr,ip6mr: call list_del_rcu() when deleting mr
table from list
On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 21:07, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 20:05, Cong Wang wrote:
> > Probably not a big deal, just for corretness.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
> > ---
> > net/ipv4/ipmr.c | 2 +-
> > net/ipv6/ip6mr.c | 2 +-
> > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> > index d6fede8..68f67b8 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> > @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static void __net_exit ipmr_rules_exit(struct net
> > *net)
> >
> > rtnl_lock();
> > list_for_each_entry_safe(mrt, next, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list) {
> > - list_del(&mrt->list);
> > + list_del_rcu(&mrt->list);
> > ipmr_free_table(mrt);
> > }
> > rtnl_unlock();
>
> I really do wonder if we have the rcu locking correct in there:
>
> Looking into getsockopt/setsockopt operations, we might have socket
> lock, but I cannot see where we lock rcu, so the ipmr_get_table call is
> safe. Do you also see the problem?
Also ipmr_free_table does need a kfree_rcu as we need to have those
tables rcu protected (we use them from softirq, so rtnl_lock is not
feasible here).
Bye,
Hannes
--
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