Patrick McHardy wrote: > 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(). Ah, and that's what you did. Sorry for the confusion :) -- 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
