[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250110-diligent-woodpecker-of-promotion-3cbcb1@leitao>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2025 01:49:44 -0800
From: Breno Leitao <leitao@...ian.org>
To: Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>
Cc: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@...look.com>,
"saeedm@...dia.com" <saeedm@...dia.com>,
"tariqt@...dia.com" <tariqt@...dia.com>,
"linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@...r.kernel.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Thomas Graf <tgraf@...g.ch>, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Hao Luo <haoluo@...gle.com>, Josh Don <joshdon@...gle.com>,
Barret Rhoden <brho@...gle.com>,
"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rhashtable: Fix potential deadlock by moving
schedule_work outside lock
Hello Herbet,
On Fri, Jan 10, 2025 at 05:27:49PM +0800, Herbert Xu wrote:
> Sorry, I think it was my addition that broke things. The condition
> for checking whether an entry is inserted is incorrect, thus resulting
> in an underflow of the number of entries after entry removal.
That is what I though originally as well, but I was not convinced. While
reading the code, I understood that, if new_tbl is not NULL, then
PTR_ERR(data) will be -ENOENT.
In which case `net_tbl` will not be NULL, and PTR_ERR(data) != -ENOENT?
Thanks for solving it.
> Please test this patch:
I don't have an easy reproducer yet, but, I will get this patch in ~50
hosts and see if any of them misbehave during the weekend.
Misbehaving in my case is strongly associate with messages like the
following being printed:
kobject_uevent: unable to create netlink socket!
Thanks
--breno
Powered by blists - more mailing lists