Hi,
On 2026/7/22 16:21, Antonio Quartulli wrote:
Hi!
On 22/07/2026 03:56, Qingfang Deng wrote:
rcu_access_pointer() should only be used to test the value of a pointer,
not to dereference it. Use rcu_dereference() instead. No extra
rcu_read_lock() is needed here, as the spin_lock_bh() above marks an RCU
critical section.
Fixes: f6226ae7a0cd ("ovpn: introduce the ovpn_socket object")
Signed-off-by: Qingfang Deng <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
index a09d61296425..8de737579112 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ovpn/peer.c
@@ -1164,7 +1164,7 @@ static void ovpn_peer_release_p2p(struct
ovpn_priv *ovpn, struct sock *sk,
}
if (sk) {
- ovpn_sock = rcu_access_pointer(peer->sock);
+ ovpn_sock = rcu_dereference(peer->sock);
Sashiko says:
Using `rcu_dereference()` instead of `rcu_dereference_bh()` under
`spin_lock_bh()` triggers a lockdep warning.
I think `rcu_dereference()` has more relax checks than
`rcu_dereference_bh()` and Sashiko is wrong, i.e. using
`rcu_dereference()` in a BH-disabled context is okay, but using
`rcu_dereference_bh()` in a process context with only `rcu_read_lock()`
is _not_ okay. Can you verify that?
Best regards,
Qingfang
_______________________________________________
Openvpn-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/openvpn-devel
