Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:38:57 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Le lundi 12 avril 2010 à 18:37 +0800, Cong Wang a écrit :
>>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> 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...
>> Yes, its RTNL that protects priv_flags changes, hopefully...
>>
>
> The patch was not protecting priv_flags with RTNL.
> For example..
>
>
> @@ -308,7 +312,9 @@ static void netpoll_send_skb(struct netp
> tries > 0; --tries) {
> if (__netif_tx_trylock(txq)) {
> if (!netif_tx_queue_stopped(txq)) {
> + dev->priv_flags |= IFF_IN_NETPOLL;
> status = ops->ndo_start_xmit(skb, dev);
> + dev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_IN_NETPOLL;
> if (status == NETDEV_TX_OK)
> txq_trans_update(txq);
Hmm, but I checked the bonding case (IFF_BONDING), it doesn't
hold rtnl_lock. Strange.
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
Bridge@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
