[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87a76e9tn8.fsf@toke.dk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 14:42:03 +0100
From: Toke Høiland-Jørgensen <toke@...hat.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>,
Amol Grover <frextrite@...il.com>
Cc: brouer@...hat.com, Alexei Starovoitov <ast@...nel.org>,
Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <jakub.kicinski@...ronome.com>,
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <hawk@...nel.org>,
John Fastabend <john.fastabend@...il.com>,
Martin KaFai Lau <kafai@...com>,
Song Liu <songliubraving@...com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
bpf@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik04@...il.com>,
"Paul E . McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] bpf: devmap: Pass lockdep expression to RCU lists
Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com> writes:
> On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 17:34:38 +0530
> Amol Grover <frextrite@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> head is traversed using hlist_for_each_entry_rcu outside an
>> RCU read-side critical section but under the protection
>> of dtab->index_lock.
>
> We do hold the lock in update and delete cases, but not in the lookup
> cases. Is it then still okay to add the lockdep_is_held() annotation?
I concluded 'yes' from the comment on hlist_for_each_entry_rcu():
The lockdep condition gets passed to this:
#define __list_check_rcu(dummy, cond, extra...) \
({ \
check_arg_count_one(extra); \
RCU_LOCKDEP_WARN(!cond && !rcu_read_lock_any_held(), \
"RCU-list traversed in non-reader section!"); \
})
so that seems fine :)
-Toke
Powered by blists - more mailing lists