On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 01:16:05AM +0000, Wei Wang wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 5:56 PM, Martin KaFai Lau <ka...@fb.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 05:35:22PM +0000, Wei Wang wrote:
> >> From: Wei Wang <wei...@google.com>
> >>
> >> fib6_del() generates WARN_ON() when rt->dst.obsolete > 0. This does not
> >> make sense because it is possible that the route passed in is already
> >> deleted by some other thread and rt->dst.obsolete is set to
> >> DST_OBSOLETE_DEAD.
> >> So this commit deletes this WARN_ON() and also remove the
> >> "#ifdef RT6_DEBUG >= 2" condition so that if the route is already
> >> obsolete, we return right at the beginning of fib6_del().
> >>
> >>
> >> diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> >> index e5308d7cbd75..693bcd7ef6d2 100644
> >> --- a/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> >> +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6_fib.c
> >> @@ -1592,13 +1592,7 @@ int fib6_del(struct rt6_info *rt, struct nl_info
> >> *info)
> >> struct net *net = info->nl_net;
> >> struct rt6_info **rtp;
> >>
> >> -#if RT6_DEBUG >= 2
> >> - if (rt->dst.obsolete > 0) {
> >> - WARN_ON(fn);
> > fn should have already been set to NULL if it is removed
> > from the fib6 tree?
> >
>
> That is true. rt->rt6i_node (fn) should already be marked as NULL.
I am probably still missing something.
Considering the del operation should be under the writer lock,
if rt->rt6i_node should be NULL (for rt that has already been
removed from fib6), why this WARN_ON() is triggered?
An example may help.
> That means the check on rt->dst.obsolete is redundant.
> I will remove it in v2.
> Thanks Martin.
>
>
> >> - return -ENOENT;
> >> - }
> >> -#endif
> >> - if (!fn || rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry)
> >> + if (!fn || rt->dst.obsolete > 0 || rt == net->ipv6.ip6_null_entry)
> >> return -ENOENT;
> >>
> >> WARN_ON(!(fn->fn_flags & RTN_RTINFO));
> >> --
> >> 2.14.1.821.g8fa685d3b7-goog
> >>
