[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGxU2F7fRui__Q=Qm8kz31yqAw5qJD1WZ+3AdS1MyS+XriZkGg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 11:01:27 +0100
From: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>
To: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 1/2] vsock/virtio: fix kernel panic after device hot-unplug
On Wed, Jan 2, 2019 at 10:39 AM Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 01:15:34PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > index 5d3cce9e8744..9dae54698737 100644
> > --- a/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > +++ b/net/vmw_vsock/virtio_transport.c
> > @@ -75,6 +75,9 @@ static u32 virtio_transport_get_local_cid(void)
> > {
> > struct virtio_vsock *vsock = virtio_vsock_get();
> >
> > + if (!vsock)
> > + return VMADDR_CID_ANY;
> > +
> > return vsock->guest_cid;
> > }
>
> This looks unrelated to the rest of the patch. Why is it necessary?
It is needed because the "the_virtio_vsock" returned by
virtio_vsock_get() is initialized during the probe and freed during
the removal.
So, if we move the vsock_core_exit() in the virtio_vsock_exit(), can
happen that the virtio_transport_get_local_cid() is called when the
"the_virtio_vsock" is NULL.
Do you think is better to split this patch?
Thanks,
Stefano
--
Stefano Garzarella
Red Hat
Powered by blists - more mailing lists