[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iJf0K39xMpzmdWd4r_u+3xFA3B6Ep3raTBms6Z8S76Zyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2025 22:06:15 +0100
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>, Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
rcu@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 net 11/16] ipv6: input: convert to dev_net_rcu()
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 10:00 PM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 21:10:59 +0100 Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Test output:
> > > https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-net-dbg/results/978202/61-l2tp-sh/
> > > Decoded:
> > > https://netdev-3.bots.linux.dev/vmksft-net-dbg/results/978202/vm-crash-thr2-0
> >
> > Oh well. So many bugs.
>
> TBH I'm slightly confused by this, and the previous warnings.
>
> The previous one was from a timer callback.
>
> This one is with BH disabled.
>
> I thought BH implies RCU protection. We certainly depend on that
> in NAPI for XDP. And threaded NAPI does the exact same thing as
> xfrm_trans_reinject(), a bare local_bh_disable().
>
> RCU folks, did something change or is just holes in my brain again?
Nope, BH does not imply rcu_read_lock()
Powered by blists - more mailing lists