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. So it looks like I can also use rcu_read_lock(), but there's no for_each_net_rcu(), should there be? johannes
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
