On Thu, Apr 14, 2016 at 01:16:56PM +0200, Florian Westphal wrote:
> Pablo Neira Ayuso <pablo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c | 8 +-------
> > > net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_tcp.c | 8 +-------
> > > 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c
> > > index 9578a7c..1d7ab96 100644
> > > --- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c
> > > +++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_proto_sctp.c
> > > @@ -191,13 +191,7 @@ static void sctp_print_tuple(struct seq_file *s,
> > > /* Print out the private part of the conntrack. */
> > > static void sctp_print_conntrack(struct seq_file *s, struct nf_conn *ct)
> > > {
> > > - enum sctp_conntrack state;
> > > -
> > > - spin_lock_bh(&ct->lock);
> > > - state = ct->proto.sctp.state;
> >
> > Don't we need at least READ_ONCE() here?
>
> Why?
>
> seq_printf(s, "%s ", sctp_conntrack_names[ct->proto.sctp.state]);
>
> I think thats fine, where do you see a problem?
ct->proto.sctp.state may be modified from another cpu while reading
this, is this read guaranteed to be atomic in any arch?
--
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
