On 14.08.2012 3:36, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Why not just move the rcu_read_lock() in br_dev_xmit earlier?
I don't know the semantics of this code, so it's difficult for me to
choose the appropriate place. I thought that the callers
of br_nf_pre_routing_finish_bridge_slow function are limited
On 14.08.2012 3:36, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
Why not just move the rcu_read_lock() in br_dev_xmit earlier?
I don't know the semantics of this code, so it's difficult for me to
choose the appropriate place. I thought that the callers
of br_nf_pre_routing_finish_bridge_slow function are limited
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:47:42 +0400
Denis Efremov wrote:
> As it noted in the comment before the br_handle_frame_finish
> function, this function should be called under rcu_read_lock.
>
> The problem callgraph:
> br_dev_xmit -> br_nf_pre_routing_finish_bridge_slow ->
> -> br_handle_frame_finish
As it noted in the comment before the br_handle_frame_finish
function, this function should be called under rcu_read_lock.
The problem callgraph:
br_dev_xmit -> br_nf_pre_routing_finish_bridge_slow ->
-> br_handle_frame_finish -> br_port_get_rcu -> rcu_dereference
And in this case there is no
As it noted in the comment before the br_handle_frame_finish
function, this function should be called under rcu_read_lock.
The problem callgraph:
br_dev_xmit - br_nf_pre_routing_finish_bridge_slow -
- br_handle_frame_finish - br_port_get_rcu - rcu_dereference
And in this case there is no
On Tue, 14 Aug 2012 02:47:42 +0400
Denis Efremov yefremov.de...@gmail.com wrote:
As it noted in the comment before the br_handle_frame_finish
function, this function should be called under rcu_read_lock.
The problem callgraph:
br_dev_xmit - br_nf_pre_routing_finish_bridge_slow -
-
6 matches
Mail list logo