Thanks for this; I will send a v2 in the next two days.
-Aaron
Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Aaron Conole <aconole@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> --- a/net/netfilter/core.c
>> +++ b/net/netfilter/core
> [..]
>> +#define nf_entry_dereference(e) \
>> + rcu_dereference_protected(e, lockdep_is_held(&nf_hook_mutex))
>>
>> -static struct list_head *nf_find_hook_list(struct net *net,
>> - const struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
>> +static struct nf_hook_entry *nf_find_hook_list(struct net *net,
>> + const struct nf_hook_ops *reg)
>> {
>> - struct list_head *hook_list = NULL;
>> + struct nf_hook_entry *hook_list = NULL;
>>
>> if (reg->pf != NFPROTO_NETDEV)
>> - hook_list = &net->nf.hooks[reg->pf][reg->hooknum];
>> + hook_list = rcu_dereference(net->nf.hooks[reg->pf]
>> + [reg->hooknum]);
>> else if (reg->hooknum == NF_NETDEV_INGRESS) {
>> #ifdef CONFIG_NETFILTER_INGRESS
>> if (reg->dev && dev_net(reg->dev) == net)
>> - hook_list = ®->dev->nf_hooks_ingress;
>> + hook_list =
>> + rcu_dereference(reg->dev->nf_hooks_ingress);
>
> Both of these should use nf_entry_dereference() to avoid the lockdep
> splat reported by kbuild robot:
>
> net/netfilter/core.c:75 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() usage!
> 2 locks held by swapper/1:
> #0: (rtnl_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81c2e567>] rtnl_lock+0x17/0x20
> #1: (nf_hook_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81c58fcb>]
> nf_register_net_hook+0xcb/0x240
>
--
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
