[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160902181352.GC14176@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2016 11:13:53 -0700
From: Brenden Blanco <bblanco@...mgrid.com>
To: Tom Herbert <tom@...bertland.com>
Cc: Tariq Toukan <tariqt@...lanox.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Linux Kernel Network Developers <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Tariq Toukan <ttoukan.linux@...il.com>,
Or Gerlitz <gerlitz.or@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net/mlx4_en: protect ring->xdp_prog with rcu_read_lock
On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:46:38AM -0700, Tom Herbert wrote:
[...]
> Brenden, tracking down how the structure is freed needed a few steps,
> please make sure the RCU requirements are well documented. Also, I'm
Really? It's just bpf_prog_put->call_rcu(__bpf_prog_put_rcu). I suppose
what's missing is a general guideline for which functions new consumers
of bpf should use, but I wouldn't trust myself to write such holistic
documentation accurately (e.g. interacting with nmi probes and such).
> still not a fan of using xchg to set the program, seems that a lock
> could be used in that path.
Where would such a lock go? Everything in mlx4/en_netdev.c relies on
rtnl, which seems sufficient and obvious...adding some new field
specific lock would be distracting and unneeded.
>
> Thanks,
> Tom
Powered by blists - more mailing lists