On 2012/04/27 20:58, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2012-04-27 at 14:28 -0400, Benjamin Poirier wrote: > > I think that the rcu usage in this code is pointless. It should either be > > removed or, if it was intended to protect against something, it ought to make > > that clear. > > > > 1) The code does not make use of the deferred deletion/wait for completion rcu > > api (ie. synchronize_rcu(), call_rcu()). > > 2) It does not benefit from the barriers implied by the rcu primitives used. > > The code deals with callback pointers. There's no need to order writes to the > > function code (!) before writes to the function pointers here. > > --- > > At a first glance, this seems pretty wrong. > > code can disappear under you, thats for sure. > > CONFIG_NF_CT_NETLINK=m > > hint : module unload contains an rcu barrier. > Thank you Eric. I had indeed failed to consider module load/unload cases, which are effectively "writes to function code". -- 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
