Stephen Hemminger wrote:
quoted text
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:38:57 +0200
> Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Le lundi 12 avril 2010 à 18:37 +0800, Cong Wang a écrit :
>>> Stephen Hemminger wrote:
>>>> There is no protection on dev->priv_flags for SMP access.
>>>> It would better bit value in dev->state if you are using it as control flag.
>>>>
>>>> Then you could use 
>>>> 			if (unlikely(test_and_clear_bit(__IN_NETPOLL, &skb->dev->state)))
>>>> 				netpoll_send_skb(...)
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Hmm, I think we can't use ->state here, it is not for this kind of purpose,
>>> according to its comments.
>>>
>>> Also, I find other usages of IFF_XXX flags of ->priv_flags are also using
>>> &, | to set or clear the flags. So there must be some other things preventing
>>> the race...
>> Yes, its RTNL that protects priv_flags changes, hopefully...
>>
> 
> The patch was not protecting priv_flags with RTNL.
> For example..
> 
> 
> @@ -308,7 +312,9 @@ static void netpoll_send_skb(struct netp
>  		     tries > 0; --tries) {
>  			if (__netif_tx_trylock(txq)) {
>  				if (!netif_tx_queue_stopped(txq)) {
> +					dev->priv_flags |= IFF_IN_NETPOLL;
>  					status = ops->ndo_start_xmit(skb, dev);
> +					dev->priv_flags &= ~IFF_IN_NETPOLL;
>  					if (status == NETDEV_TX_OK)
>  						txq_trans_update(txq);

Hmm, but I checked the bonding case (IFF_BONDING), it doesn't
hold rtnl_lock. Strange.

--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/