[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHA+R7Puss-BUG0gFdw+FnbaiXE6Rx=FJ8ccJ2JyJdNMz7H2bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:17:12 -0700
From: Cong Wang <cwang@...pensource.com>
To: Alexander Duyck <alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com>
Cc: Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Patch net-next] fib: move fib_rules_cleanup_ops() under rtnl lock
On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Alexander Duyck
<alexander.h.duyck@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> This locking issue, if present, is separate from the original issue you
> reported. I'm going to submit a patch to fix your original issue and you
> can chase this locking issue down separately if that is what you want to do.
Make sure you really read my changelog, in case you don't:
"
ops->rules_list is protected by rtnl_lock + RCU,
there is no reason to take net->rules_mod_lock here.
Also, ops->delete() needs to be called with rtnl_lock
too. The problem exists before, just it is exposed
recently due to the fib local/main table change.
"
Sometimes people more easily miss the most obvious thing,
which is the first sentences of my changelog.
> This way if someone ever decides to backport it they can actually fix the
> original issue without pulling in speculative fixes for the rtnl locking
> problem since we were already holding the lock for fib4.
>
Backporting is my guess of Thomas's point, you go too far beyond it.
Also, you have a different definition of original issue.
--
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