From: "Paul E. McKenney"
Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2013 12:20:11 -0700
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 06:01:22AM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> [PATCH] net: add a synchronize_net() in netdev_rx_handler_unregister()
>>
>> commit 35d48903e97819 (bonding: fix rx_handler lock
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 12:20 -0700, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> Reviewed-by: Paul E. McKenney
>
> With kudos to Steven Rostedt for his analogy between RCU and
> Schrödinger's cat. ;-)
Thanks Paul !
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a messa
unregister);
> >
> >
>
> Nope this changes nothing at all.
>
> However, we can fix the bug in a different way, if we want to avoid a
> test in fast path.
>
> With following patch, we can make sure that a reader seeing a non NULL
> rx_handler has a guaran
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 17:12 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
> Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:38:15PM CET, eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote:
> >On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 16:11 +0100, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> >
> >> Erik, why doesn't help the write barrier between the assignments. It
> >> should guarantee their orders... or
Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 04:38:15PM CET, eric.duma...@gmail.com wrote:
>On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 16:11 +0100, Ivan Vecera wrote:
>
>> Erik, why doesn't help the write barrier between the assignments. It
>> should guarantee their orders... or not?
>>
>
>Its not enough, I wont explain here why as RCU is q
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 16:11 +0100, Ivan Vecera wrote:
> Erik, why doesn't help the write barrier between the assignments. It
> should guarantee their orders... or not?
>
Its not enough, I wont explain here why as RCU is quite well documented
in Documentation/RCU
--
To unsubscribe from this l
On 03/29/2013 02:01 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
CPU0 will see rx_handler set and yet, rx_handler_data nulled. Write
>barrier in rcu_assign_pointer() might prevent this reorder from happening.
>Therefore I suggest:
>
>diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
>index 0caa38e..c16b829 100644
>--- a/n
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 09:17 -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote:
> I've thought about this too, but I wasn't sure we wanted two
> synchronize_*() functions, as the caller does a synchronize as well.
> That said, I think this is the more robust solution and it lets all
> rx_handler() functions assume that
On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 06:01 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> On Fri, 2013-03-29 at 10:48 +0100, Jiri Pirko wrote:
>
> > Hmm. I think that this might be issue introduced by:
> > commit a9b3cd7f323b2e57593e7215362a7b02fc933e3a
> > Author: Stephen Hemminger
> > Date: Mon Aug 1
> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(netdev_rx_handler_unregister);
>
>
Nope this changes nothing at all.
However, we can fix the bug in a different way, if we want to avoid a
test in fast path.
With following patch, we can make sure that a reader seeing a non NULL
rx_handler has a guarantee to
10 matches
Mail list logo
