[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAM_iQpUSgpeL_Dy+U+KrBd=h3bhm03vASupdO-9dSs+CKYjNeg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:16:30 -0700
From: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>
To: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Cc: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@...nd.com>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: netns: use a spin_lock to protect nsid management
(Please always Cc netdev for networking bugs)
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Dan Carpenter
<dan.carpenter@...cle.com> wrote:
> Hello Nicolas Dichtel,
>
> The patch 95f38411df05: "netns: use a spin_lock to protect nsid
> management" from May 7, 2015, leads to the following static checker
> warning:
>
> net/core/net_namespace.c:580 rtnl_net_newid()
> warn: inconsistent returns 'spin_lock:&nsid_lock'.
>
> net/core/net_namespace.c
> 565
> 566 spin_lock_irqsave(&nsid_lock, flags);
> 567 if (__peernet2id(net, peer) >= 0) {
> 568 err = -EEXIST;
> 569 goto out;
>
> I don't know if __peernet2id() unlocks on error but it can't possibly
> restore flags so this isn't right.
>
Yes it is a bug.
Also why do we have to disable IRQ when holding the spinlock?
IOW, which case takes the spin lock in IRQ context?
Thanks.
--
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