[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g44jmpDyeh--=Hd2fAexzik4gMYLMdNhAMqxWqnjSh4KeA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2018 14:46:50 -0700
From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To: eric.dumazet@...il.com
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, kuznet@....inr.ac.ru,
yoshfuji@...ux-ipv6.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] net: ipv6: fix racey clock check in route cache aging logic
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 2:40 PM Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2018 02:13 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > index 2a7423c394560..54d28b91fd840 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv6/route.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
> > @@ -1734,7 +1734,7 @@ static void rt6_age_examine_exception(struct rt6_exception_bucket *bucket,
> > rt6_remove_exception(bucket, rt6_ex);
> > return;
> > }
> > - } else if (time_after(jiffies, rt->dst.expires)) {
> > + } else if (time_after(now, rt->dst.expires)) {
> > RT6_TRACE("purging expired route %p\n", rt);
> > rt6_remove_exception(bucket, rt6_ex);
> > return;
> >
>
>
> I do not think there is a bug here ?
>
> As a matter of fact, using the latest value of jiffies is probably better,
> since in some cases the @now variable could be quite in the past.
Then why do we pass the `now` parameter in at all and use it at all,
like here: https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/net/ipv6/route.c#L1764
?
I am still skeptical that we should check jiffies in each check, but
we should at least be consistent.
Cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists