On Tue, 2005-22-11 at 04:14 +0100, Patrick McHardy wrote: > jamal wrote:
> > Of course, the underlying assumption is that in fact it could happen. > > Could it actually happen? Because if that was the case, a lot of code in > > the net area would need to be audited and fixed. > > I don't see anything preventing it - which would be taking the RTNL > in this case. But I think most code is probably still OK because > in most cases sysctls aren't checked multiple times. > yes, RTNL is one but most of the ones i just inspected are protected under dev_base_lock; so this should be sufficient, no? > > I think i should remove the second check because it is redundant > > actually regardless - but if serves the purpose of avoiding a race even > > better. > > The first one also needs to be moved out of the loop to be complete. I didnt quiet follow - why would it be more complete if we moved it out of the loop? Does this have something to do with syctl being reentered multiple times? cheers, jamal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
