Johannes Berg <johannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > 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? I'm not using rcu safe list manipulation. What makes it look like rcu_read_lock() is safe? Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
