Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>> Index: linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_forward.c
>> ===================================================================
>> --- linux-2.6.orig/net/bridge/br_forward.c
>> +++ linux-2.6/net/bridge/br_forward.c
>> @@ -15,6 +15,7 @@
>> #include <linux/slab.h>
>> #include <linux/kernel.h>
>> #include <linux/netdevice.h>
>> +#include <linux/netpoll.h>
>> #include <linux/skbuff.h>
>> #include <linux/if_vlan.h>
>> #include <linux/netfilter_bridge.h>
>> @@ -50,7 +51,13 @@ int br_dev_queue_push_xmit(struct sk_buf
>> else {
>> skb_push(skb, ETH_HLEN);
>>
>> - dev_queue_xmit(skb);
>> +#ifdef CONFIG_NET_POLL_CONTROLLER
>> + if (skb->dev->priv_flags & IFF_IN_NETPOLL) {
>> + netpoll_send_skb(skb->dev->npinfo->netpoll, skb);
>> + skb->dev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_IN_NETPOLL;
>> + } else
>> +#endif
>
> There is no protection on dev->priv_flags for SMP access.
> It would better bit value in dev->state if you are using it as control flag.
>
> Then you could use
> if (unlikely(test_and_clear_bit(__IN_NETPOLL, &skb->dev->state)))
> netpoll_send_skb(...)
>
>
Hmm, I think we can't use ->state here, it is not for this kind of purpose,
according to its comments.
Also, I find other usages of IFF_XXX flags of ->priv_flags are also using
&, | to set or clear the flags. So there must be some other things preventing
the race...
Thanks.
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
