On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 12:07:05PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 11:46 AM Florian Westphal <fw@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > While kfree_rcu(ptr) _is_ supported, it has some limitations.
> > >
> > > Given that 99.99% of kfree_rcu() users [1] use the legacy
> > > two parameters variant, and @catchall objects do have an rcu head,
> > > simply use it.
> > >
> > > Choice of kfree_rcu(ptr) variant was probably not intentional.
> >
> > In case someone wondered, this causes expensive
> > sycnhronize_rcu + kfree for each removal operation.
>
> This fallback to synchronize_rcu() only happens if kvfree_call_rcu() has been
> unable to allocate a new block of memory.
>
> But yes, I guess I would add a Fixes: tag, because we can easily avoid
> this potential issue.
>
> Pablo, if not too late:
>
> Fixes: aaa31047a6d2 ("netfilter: nftables: add catch-all set element support")
Applied, thanks!
