netdev - Re: [PATCH] Revert "batman-adv: prefer kfree_rcu() over call

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 18:31:57 +0200
From: Linus Lüssing <linus.luessing@...3.blue>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...nel.org>
Cc: b.a.t.m.a.n@...ts.open-mesh.org, Dmitry Antipov <dmantipov@...dex.ru>,
	netdev@...r.kernel.org, rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Revert "batman-adv: prefer kfree_rcu() over call_rcu()
 with free-only callbacks"

On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 09:06:25AM -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> We are looking into nice ways of solving this, but in the meantime,
> yes, if you are RCU-freeing slab objects into a slab that is destroyed
> at module-unload time, you currently need to stick with call_rcu()
> and rcu_barrier().
> 
> We do have some potential solutions to allow use of kfree_rcu() with
> this sort of slab, but they are still strictly potential.
> 
> Apologies for my having failed to foresee this particular trap!
> 
> 							Thanx, Paul

No worries, thanks for the help and clarification! This at least
restored my sanity, was starting to doubt my understanding of RCU
and the batman-adv code the longer I tried to find the issue in
batman-adv :D.