Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:03:19PM CEST, kaber@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 02:37:51PM CEST, jengelh@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday 2010-06-09 14:21, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Patrick. >>>> >>>> Once module registers it's struct xt_target by xt_register_target and >>>> ->target and ->checkentry funtions are called later, is there any lock >>>> guaranteed to be held? >>>> >>> >From what I see for ->target it looks like rcu_read_lock is held, but >>> >>>> I'm not sure for all paths. There would be nice to put a comment into >>>> struct xt_target definition regarding locks. >>>> >>> Though nf_hook_slow invokes rcu_read_lock, that should not be a formal >>> guarantee that Xtables extensions run with RCU. See xt_TCPMSS for >>> example. >>> >> >> A was afraid of it. Thanks. > >We actually assume this in all conntrack helpers, so I don't see anything >wrong with making the same assumption in xtables modules, as long as >its documented. Where this is documented please? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
