[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180528104253.64e10ffc@xeon-e3>
Date: Mon, 28 May 2018 10:42:53 -0700
From: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
To: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
Cc: bridge@...ts.linux-foundation.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] net: bridge: Lock before br_fdb_find()
On Mon, 28 May 2018 17:44:16 +0200
Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com> wrote:
> Callers of br_fdb_find() need to hold the hash lock, which
> br_fdb_find_port() doesn't do. Add the missing lock/unlock
> pair.
>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <petrm@...lanox.com>
> ---
> net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 2 ++
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> index b19e310..3f5691a 100644
> --- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> +++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c
> @@ -135,9 +135,11 @@ struct net_device *br_fdb_find_port(const struct net_device *br_dev,
> return NULL;
>
> br = netdev_priv(br_dev);
> + spin_lock_bh(&br->hash_lock);
> f = br_fdb_find(br, addr, vid);
> if (f && f->dst)
> dev = f->dst->dev;
> + spin_unlock_bh(&br->hash_lock);
>
> return dev;
> }
Sigh. when did br_fdb_find start needing hash_lock?
What is the point of RCU then?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists