On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:41:43PM +0200, Manfred Spraul wrote:
> >--- a/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> >+++ b/net/netfilter/nf_conntrack_core.c
> >@@ -74,7 +74,18 @@ void nf_conntrack_lock(spinlock_t *lock)
> > spin_lock(lock);
> > while (unlikely(nf_conntrack_locks_all)) {
> > spin_unlock(lock);
> >+ /*
> >+ * Order the nf_contrack_locks_all load vs the spin_unlock_wait()
> >+ * loads below, to ensure locks_all is indeed held.
> >+ */
> >+ smp_rmb(); /* spin_lock(locks_all) */
> > spin_unlock_wait(&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock);
> I don't understand the comment, and I don't understand why the smp_rmb() is
> required: What do you want to protect against?
I order against the spin_unlock_wait() load of
nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock being done _before_ the
nf_conntrack_locks_all load.
This is possible because the spin_unlock() in between will stop the
nf_conntrack_locks_all load from falling down, but it doesn't stop the
&nf_conntrack_locks_all_lock lock from being done early.
Inverting these two loads could result in not waiting when we should.
nf_conntrack_all_lock() nf_conntrack_lock()
[L] all_locks == unlocked
[S] spin_lock(&all_lock);
[S] all = true;
[L] all == true
And we'll not wait for the current all_lock section to finish.
Resulting in an all_lock and lock section at the same time.
--
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
