[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <916bada8-febc-7da9-022a-34dee4010e8b@brocade.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2017 20:21:45 +0000
From: Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
CC: <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, <tom@...bertland.com>,
<roopa@...ulusnetworks.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 0/2] net: Fix oops on state free after lwt module
unload
On 20/01/17 17:03, David Miller wrote:
> From: Robert Shearman <rshearma@...cade.com>
> Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2017 15:32:01 +0000
>
>> This patchset fixes an oops in lwtstate_free and a memory leak that
>> would otherwise be exposed by ensuring that references are taken on
>> modules that need to stay around to clean up lwt state. To faciliate
>> this all ops that implement destroy_state and that can be configured
>> to build as a module are changed specify the owner module in the
>> ops. The intersection of those two sets is just ila at the moment.
>
> Two things:
>
> 1) Under no circumstances should we allow a lwtunnel ops implementing
> module to unload while there is a rule using those ops which is
> alive.
>
> Therefore, we should not special case the destroy op. We should
> unconditionally grab the module reference.
>
> 2) Please add the new 'owner' field and add an appropriate assignment
> for ops->owner to _every_ lwtunnel implementation, and do so in
> your first patch. Please do not only do this for ILA.
>
> Thanks.
Very clear, makes sense, will do.
Thanks,
Rob
Powered by blists - more mailing lists