From: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion•org>
To: Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@gmail•com>,
Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail•com>
Cc: davem@davemloft•net, netdev@vger•kernel.org,
sasha.levin@oracle•com, daniel@iogearbox•net, mkubecek@suse•cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH net 4/4] tcp: various missing rcu_read_lock around __sk_dst_get
Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 06:12:49 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <56FDF541.6070106@stressinduktion.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160401040442.GA14661@ast-mbp.thefacebook.com>
On 01.04.2016 06:04, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 08:03:38PM -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Thu, 2016-03-31 at 18:45 -0700, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>>
>>> Eric, what's your take on Hannes's patch 2 ?
>>> Is it more accurate to ask lockdep to check for actual lock
>>> or lockdep can rely on owned flag?
>>> Potentially there could be races between setting the flag and
>>> actual lock... but that code is contained, so unlikely.
>>> Will we find the real issues with this 'stronger' check or
>>> just spend a ton of time adapting to new model like your other
>>> patch for release_sock and whatever may need to come next...
>>
>> More precise lockdep checks are certainly good, I only objected to 4/4
>> trying to work around another bug.
>>
>> But why do we rush for 'net' tree ?
>>
>> This looks net-next material to me.
>>
>> Locking changes are often subtle, lets take the time to do them
>> properly.
>
> completely agree. I think only first patch belongs in net.
> Everything else is net-next material.
Problem with first patch is that it uses lock_sock_fast, thus the
current sock_owned_by_user check doesn't get rid the lockdep warning. :/
Thus we would need to go with the two first patches. Do you think it is
acceptable? I actually didn't see a problem and testing showed no
problems so far.
Bye,
Hannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-01 4:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-31 23:29 [PATCH net 0/4] net: fix and tighten rcu dereference checks Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-03-31 23:29 ` [PATCH net 1/4] tun: add socket locking around sk_{attach,detach}_filter Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-03-31 23:29 ` [PATCH net 2/4] net: proper check if we hold the socket lock during dereference Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-03-31 23:29 ` [PATCH net 3/4] sock: use lockdep_sock_is_held were appropriate Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-03-31 23:29 ` [PATCH net 4/4] tcp: various missing rcu_read_lock around __sk_dst_get Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-03-31 23:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 0:01 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 0:12 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 0:21 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 1:19 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 1:36 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 1:39 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 1:45 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 2:01 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 3:13 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 3:31 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 1:58 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 1:45 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-04-01 3:03 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 3:06 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 4:04 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-04-01 4:12 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa [this message]
2016-04-01 4:26 ` Alexei Starovoitov
2016-04-01 4:33 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 8:10 ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-04-01 18:33 ` David Miller
2016-04-01 18:36 ` Daniel Borkmann
2016-04-01 0:30 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-04-01 1:23 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-04-01 1:37 ` Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-03-31 23:48 ` [PATCH net 5/4] tcp: fix rcu usage around __sk_dst_get in tcp_update_metrics Hannes Frederic Sowa
2016-03-31 23:56 ` [PATCH net 6/4] tcp: fix __sk_dst_get usage in tcp_current_mss Hannes Frederic Sowa
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=56FDF541.6070106@stressinduktion.org \
--to=hannes@stressinduktion$(echo .)org \
--cc=alexei.starovoitov@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=daniel@iogearbox$(echo .)net \
--cc=davem@davemloft$(echo .)net \
--cc=eric.dumazet@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=mkubecek@suse$(echo .)cz \
--cc=netdev@vger$(echo .)kernel.org \
--cc=sasha.levin@oracle$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox