Nicolas Dichtel wrote: > Le 06.02.2009 23:10, David Miller a écrit : >> From: Nicolas Dichtel <nicolas.dichtel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 14:50:53 +0100 >> >>> If namespace is destroyed after this function, then cleanup_net() >>> will ensure that nobody is looking at it >> >> Maybe, but you better get some opinions from the people who wrote >> and maintain the network namespace code before I can consider >> your change seriously. >> >> None of them responded to your patch posting, probably because >> you failed to CC: any of them. > Sorry, I forget to cc them, now it's done. > The thread can be found here: > http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdev&m=123382930115535&w=2 > > So, I'm waiting for maintainers's opinions. We can move one network device from one namespace to another namespace, and that do not necessarily implies the network namespace will die and call cleanup_net. Without synchronize_net, it would be possible to have netif_receive_skb and dev_change_net_namespace to be executed concurrently, no ? Wouldn't the execution of one of this function be problematic if we are in the delivery of a packet to the upper protocol in the big rcu_read_lock section of netif_receive_skb ? dev_shutdown(dev); /* Notify protocols, that we are about to destroy this device. They should clean all the things. */ call_netdevice_notifiers(NETDEV_UNREGISTER, dev); /* * Flush the unicast and multicast chains */ dev_addr_discard(dev); netdev_unregister_kobject(dev); /* Actually switch the network namespace */ dev_net_set(dev, net); Thanks -- Daniel _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers