Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/9] deadlock prevention core

[Daniel Phillips <phillips@google.com>]

David Miller wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
> > Hmm, what does sk_buff::input_dev do? That seems to store the initial
> > device?
>
> You can run grep on the tree just as easily as I can which is what I
> did to answer this question.  It only takes a few seconds of your
> time to grep the source tree for things like "skb->input_dev", so
> would you please do that before asking more questions like this?
>
> It does store the initial device, but as Thomas tried so hard to
> explain to you guys these device pointers in the skb are transient and
> you cannot refer to them outside of packet receive processing.

Thomas did a great job of explaining and without any flaming or ad
hominem attacks.

We have now formed a decent plan for doing the accounting in a stable
way without adding new fields to sk_buff, thankyou for the catch.

> The reason is that there is no refcounting performed on these devices
> when they are attached to the skb, for performance reasons, and thus
> the device can be downed, the module for it removed, etc. long before
> the skb is freed up.

The virtual block device can refcount the network device on virtual
device create and un-refcount on virtual device delete.  We need to
add that to the core patch and maybe package it nicely so the memalloc
reserve/unreserve happens at the same time, in a tidy little library
function to share with other virtual devices like iSCSI that also need
some anti-deadlock lovin.

Regards,

Daniel
-
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/