[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1448908052.24696.136.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:27:32 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>,
Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] ipv6: kill sk_dst_lock
On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 19:13 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote:
> On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 08:35 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > ip6_sk_dst_lookup_flow() uses sk_dst_check() anyway, so the simplest
> > way to fix the mess is to remove sk_dst_lock completely, as we did for
> > IPv4.
>
> Probably I'm missing something here, but why we don't need to sync the
> update of sk_dst_cache and of dst_cookie (i.e. put them under the same
> lock)?
>
> Can't we end up with inconsistent values after concurrent udp
> sendmsg() ?
I do not think this is an issue. A route is best effort.
If really a packet is dropped during a route flap, no big deal,
especially if this is during a fuzzer test ;)
--
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