Re: [tipc-discussion] [net 0/5] solve two deadlock issues

2017-02-21 Thread Jon Maloy
Hi John. Yes you are right. But I still would prefer a condensed patch where we don’t touch the refcounts when this goes into ‘net’. I am awaiting a comment from Ying. ///jon From: John Thompson [mailto:thompa@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 04:18 PM To: Jon Maloy Cc: Ying Xue

Re: [tipc-discussion] [net 0/5] solve two deadlock issues

2017-02-21 Thread John Thompson
Patch #2 removes the tipc_subscrp_get() and _put() from tipc_subscrp_report_overlap(). This prevents the problem of the early returns. JT On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 1:42 AM, Jon Maloy wrote: > I don't see that you remove the two premature 'return's in > subcsrb_report_overlap() in your series. The

Re: [tipc-discussion] [net 5/5] tipc: remove unnecessary increasement of subscription refcount

2017-02-21 Thread John Thompson
Sorry, I was mistaken. You are right that you have removed the sub->lock from tipc_subscrp_kref_release() and so there is no chance of a deadlock. JT On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 11:22 PM, Ying Xue wrote: > On 02/21/2017 06:13 AM, John Thompson wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Y

Re: [tipc-discussion] TIPC Oops in tipc_sk_recv

2017-02-21 Thread Butler, Peter
Unfortunately this occurred on a customer system so it is not readily reproducible. We have not seen this occur in our lab. For what it's worth, it occurred while the process was in TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE. As such, the kernel could not actually kill off the associated process despite the Oops,

Re: [tipc-discussion] TIPC Oops in tipc_sk_recv

2017-02-21 Thread Jon Maloy
Hi Peter, I don't think this is any known bug. Is it repeatable? ///jon > -Original Message- > From: Butler, Peter [mailto:pbut...@sonusnet.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 12:14 PM > To: tipc-discussion@lists.sourceforge.net > Cc: Butler, Peter > Subject: [tipc-discussion] TIPC O

[tipc-discussion] TIPC Oops in tipc_sk_recv

2017-02-21 Thread Butler, Peter
This was with kernel 4.4.0, however I don't see any fix specifically related to this in any subsequent 4.4.x kernel... BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 00d8 IP: [] tipc_sk_rcv+0x238/0x4d0 [tipc] PGD 34f4c0067 PUD 34ed95067 PMD 0 Oops: [#1] SMP Modules link

Re: [tipc-discussion] [net 0/5] solve two deadlock issues

2017-02-21 Thread Jon Maloy
I don't see that you remove the two premature 'return's in subcsrb_report_overlap() in your series. These are also genuine bugs that must be fixed. ///jon > -Original Message- > From: Jon Maloy [mailto:jon.ma...@ericsson.com] > Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2017 06:12 AM > To: Ying Xue ;

Re: [tipc-discussion] [net 0/5] solve two deadlock issues

2017-02-21 Thread Jon Maloy
Hi Ying, These are good design changes, that definitely should go in asap. However, I feel deeply uncomfortable with such a big change going into 'net', especially since our previous, exceptionally large, contribution now has turned out to have problems. I wonder if we could not get away with so

Re: [tipc-discussion] [net 5/5] tipc: remove unnecessary increasement of subscription refcount

2017-02-21 Thread Ying Xue
On 02/21/2017 06:13 AM, John Thompson wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 12:39 AM, Ying Xue > wrote: > > As the policy of holding subscription in subscriber time has been > adjusted, it's unnecessary to hold subscription refcount before > tipc_subscr