[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a0b1aa08-b8dd-3b41-6c0c-7482e05a9986@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 17:34:15 -0700
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Cc: "Gong, Sishuai" <sishuai@...due.edu>,
"tgraf@...g.ch" <tgraf@...g.ch>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"Sousa da Fonseca, Pedro Jose" <pfonseca@...due.edu>
Subject: Re: PROBLEM: potential concurrency bug in rhashtable.h
On 7/23/20 5:09 PM, Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 23, 2020 at 03:32:05PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for the report/analysis.
>
> Thanks indeed.
>
>> READ_ONCE() should help here, can you test/submit an official patch ?
>
> This is basically a hand-rolled RCU access. So we should instead
> use proper RCU operators if possible. Let me see what I can do.
Sure, but __rht_ptr() is used with different RCU checks,
I guess a that adding these lockdep conditions will make
a patch more invasive.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists