[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ba309652e6ebc9ae154fe1f8cb1679216c5c07cc.camel@sipsolutions.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 16:27:48 +0200
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
To: Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] net: bonding: correctly annotate RCU in
bond_should_notify_peers()
On Tue, 2024-07-23 at 16:22 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Jul 19, 2024 at 06:31:18PM CEST, johannes@...solutions.net wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-07-19 at 11:42 +0200, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> > > Thu, Jul 18, 2024 at 09:20:16PM CEST, johannes@...solutions.net wrote:
> > > > From: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> > > >
> > > > RCU use in bond_should_notify_peers() looks wrong, since it does
> > > > rcu_dereference(), leaves the critical section, and uses the
> > > > pointer after that.
> > > >
> > > > Luckily, it's called either inside a nested RCU critical section
> > > > or with the RTNL held.
> > > >
> > > > Annotate it with rcu_dereference_rtnl() instead, and remove the
> > > > inner RCU critical section.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>
> > >
> > > Fixes 4cb4f97b7e361745281e843499ba58691112d2f8 perhaps?
> > >
> >
> > I don't really want to get into that discussion again :)
>
> Which one? I have to be missing something...
>
The one that we like to repeat all the time about whether a Fixes tag
should be included or not, like in
https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/20240705134221.2f4de205caa1.I28496dc0f2ced580282d1fb892048017c4491e21@changeid/
johannes
Powered by blists - more mailing lists