On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 09:38:54AM -0700, Suzanne Wood wrote:
>
> ChangeLog:
> Because bpq_new_device() calls list_add_rcu()
> and bpq_free_device() calls list_del_rcu(),
> substitute list_for_each_entry_rcu() for
> list_for_each_entry() in bpq_get_ax25_dev().
> This requires the insertion of rcu_read_lock()/unlock().
The rcu_read_lock/unlock is unnecessary because the only caller that
doesn't hold RTNL (bpq_rcv) already takes that lock. In fact it's
better to take it there since you need to hold the lock for the duration
of the use of the device.
> A consequence of list_for_each_entry_rcu(bpq, &bpq_devices, bpq_list)
> is that the future dereference of the pointer to the bpqdev
> struct bpq is rcu-protected. But bpq_get_ax25_dev()
> returns bpq->axdev, a pointer to a net_device struct. The
> rcu_read_lock() in bpq_rcv() likely implies that is another
> pointer to receive rcu-protected dereference.
The rcu_dereference should be provided by list_for_each_entry_rcu.
In fact there is a bug in the list_*_rcu macros where the first
element is not put through rcu_dereference. I'll fix that up.
> The rcu_read_lock()/unlock() in bpq_device_event()
> are removed due to the following found by considering
> the cases of the switch statement:
Agreed.
Thanks,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
