On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:42 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatg...@gmail.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:38:32 -0500
>
>> On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:28 PM, David Miller <da...@davemloft.net> wrote:
>>> From: Craig Gallek <kraigatg...@gmail.com>
>>> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:51:19 -0500
>>>
>>>> I was actually just looking at this as well (though a slightly
>>>> different stack). The issue is with: c6ff5268293e rhashtable: Fix
>>>> walker list corruption
>>>>
>>>> It changed the lock acquired in rhashtable_walk_init to use the new
>>>> spinlock, but the rht_dereference macro expects the mutex. I was
>>>> still trying to track down which repository this change came in
>>>> through, though...
>>>
>>> Both cam via my networking tree.
>> Simple fix is below. Though, I don't understand the history of the
>> multiple locks in this structure to be sure it's correct. I'll send
>> it as a formal patch. Please reject if it's not the right approach.
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
>> index 1c149e9..cc80870 100644
>> --- a/lib/rhashtable.c
>> +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
>> @@ -516,7 +516,8 @@ int rhashtable_walk_init(struct rhashtable *ht,
>> struct rhashtable_iter *iter)
>> return -ENOMEM;
>>
>> spin_lock(&ht->lock);
>> - iter->walker->tbl = rht_dereference(ht->tbl, ht);
>> + iter->walker->tbl =
>> + rcu_dereference_protected(ht->tbl,
>> lockdep_is_held(&ht->lock));
>> list_add(&iter->walker->list, &iter->walker->tbl->walkers);
>> spin_unlock(&ht->lock);
>
> How can this be the "fix"? That's exactly what's in the tree.
Ah, you're right, this fix was submitted to next in 179ccc0a7364 but
hasn't made it into net-next yet.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
