Nicolas Dichtel wrote: > Le 10.02.2009 17:40, Daniel Lezcano a écrit : >> 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 ? > Just to be sure: there is two synchronize_net() in > dev_change_net_namespace(), and I was talking about the second one. > The second one is called just before exiting the function. > > > Regards, > Nicolas Ah, ok :) Hmm, at the first glance I would say it is useless but perhaps there is a trick here I do not understand. Eric, is there any particular reason to call synchronize_net before exiting the dev_change_net_namespace function ? _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers