[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <733568cc-0a7d-4fc5-a251-2032fb484a4d@amd.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2024 14:41:40 +0530
From: Vineeth Karumanchi <vineeth.karumanchi@....com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: claudiu.beznea@...on.dev, davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, kuni1840@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
nicolas.ferre@...rochip.com, pabeni@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 net] net: macb: Use rcu_dereference() for
idev->ifa_list in macb_suspend().
On 08/08/24 10:15 am, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
> From: Vineeth Karumanchi <vineeth.karumanchi@....com>
> Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2024 09:53:42 +0530
>> Hi Kuniyuki,
>>
>> On 08/08/24 9:30 am, Kuniyuki Iwashima wrote:
>>> In macb_suspend(), idev->ifa_list is fetched with rcu_access_pointer()
>>> and later the pointer is dereferenced as ifa->ifa_local.
>>>
>>> So, idev->ifa_list must be fetched with rcu_dereference().
>>>
>>
>> Is there any functional breakage ?
>
> rcu_dereference() triggers lockdep splat if not called under
> rcu_read_lock().
>
> Also in include/linux/rcupdate.h:
>
> /**
> * rcu_access_pointer() - fetch RCU pointer with no dereferencing
> ...
> * It is usually best to test the rcu_access_pointer() return value
> * directly in order to avoid accidental dereferences being introduced
> * by later inattentive changes. In other words, assigning the
> * rcu_access_pointer() return value to a local variable results in an
> * accident waiting to happen.
>
>
>> I sent initial patch with rcu_dereference, but there is a review comment:
>>
>> https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/a02fac3b21a97dc766d65c4ed2d080f1ed87e87e.camel@redhat.com/
>
> I guess the following ifa_local was missed then ?
I am ok to use rcu_dereference(), just curios why the check
idev->ifa_list was removed ?
vineeth
Powered by blists - more mailing lists