[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89i+H9dVgVE0NbucHizZX2une+bjscjcCT+ZvVNj5YFHYpg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 21:29:15 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com>
Cc: Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
netdev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@...driver.com>,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>,
Or Gerlitz <ogerlitz@...lanox.com>,
Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@...il.com>,
Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>,
Andrew Lunn <andrew@...n.ch>,
Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Correct usage of dev_base_lock in 2020
On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 9:26 PM Vladimir Oltean <olteanv@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 12:21:29PM -0800, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > if device is in a private list (in bond device), the way to handle
> > this is to use dev_hold() to keep a ref count.
>
> Correct, dev_hold is a tool that can also be used. But it is a tool that
> does not solve the general problem - only particular ones. See the other
> interesting callers of dev_get_stats in parisc, appldata, net_failover.
> We can't ignore that RTNL is used for write-side locking forever.
dev_base_lock is used to protect the list of devices (eg for /proc/net/devices),
so this will need to be replaced by something. dev_hold() won't
protect the 'list' from changing under us.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists