Eric Dumazet wrote: > Le lundi 10 mai 2010 à 17:40 +0200, Patrick McHardy a écrit : >> David Miller wrote: >>> From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> >>> Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 07:43:56 +0200 >>> >>>> Le lundi 03 mai 2010 à 07:41 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit : >>>> >>>>> Oops scratch that, I'll resend a correct version. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> Sorry, patch _is_ fine, I had one brain collapse when re-reading it, I >>>> thought a different mutex was in use in one of the functions. >>> Ok, Patrick please review, thanks. >> Actually we don't need the rcu_dereference() calls at all since >> registration and unregistration are protected by the mutexes. >> >> I queued this patch in nf-next, the only reason why I haven't >> submitted it yet is that I was unable to get git to cleanly export >> only the proper set of patches meant for -next due to a few merges, >> it insists on including 5 patches already merged upstream. If you >> don't mind ignoring the first 5 patches in the series, I'll send a >> pull request tonight. >> > > This will clash with upcoming RCU patches, where rcu protected pointer > cannot be directly accessed without lockdep splats. > > We will need one day or another a rcu_...(nf_conntrack_event_cb) Thanks for the information, I didn't realize that when looking at those patches. So I guess the correct fix once those patches are merged would be to use rcu_assign_protected() and rcu_access_pointer(). -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
