On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:46 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > This makes wireless extensions netns aware. > > > > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > Is this ok, or is this racy? I guess what I'm asking is -- will > > for_each_net() stop iterating over a netns that is going away before the > > pernet exit op is called? If yes, this should be fine. > > for_each_net requires the rtnl_lock or the net_mutex to be safe. > You aren't taking either so your code is racy. Ah ok! > A dying network namespace will be removed from the net_namespace_list > (aka for_each_net) before the per net exit methods are called. > > Is grabbing the rtnl_lock safe in your workqueue and is that something > we want to do? Ok, thanks. Well, it's a tasklet currently, but can easily be converted to a work struct and then take the rtnl. johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
