> On 23 May 2020, at 12:54, Martin Pieuchot <m...@openbsd.org> wrote:
>
> On 22/05/20(Fri) 13:25, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
>> On Fri, May 22, 2020 at 07:57:13AM +1000, David Gwynne wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> can you try the following diff?
>>>
>>
>> I tested this diff and it works for me. But the problem I pointed is
>> about pipex(4) locking.
>>
>> pipex(4) requires NET_LOCK() be grabbed not only for underlaying
>> ip{,6}_output() but for itself too. But since pppac_start() has
>> unpredictable behavior I suggested to make it predictable [1].
>
> What needs the NET_LOCK() in their? We're talking about
> pipex_ppp_output(), right? Does it really need the NET_LOCK() or
> the KERNEL_LOCK() is what protects those data structures?
Yes, about pipex_ppp_output() and pipex_output(). Except
ip{,6}_output() nothing requires NET_LOCK(). As David Gwynne pointed,
they can be replaced by ip{,6}_send().
>
>> With net/ifq.c rev 1.37 and rev 1.39 pppx_if_start() routine will be
>> allways called under NET_LOCK(), but pppac_start() will not. It depends
>> on packet count stored in `if_snd' (look at net/ifq.c:125).
>
> Ideally the *_start() routine should not require the NET_LOCK().
> Ideally the pseudo-drivers should not require the NET_LOCK(). That's
> what we should aim for.
NET_LOCK() is not required. It’s locked while corresponding start routines
were called directly from pppx_if_output() and pppac_output(). In case of
pppac_start() you can't predict NET_LOCK() status.
>
> In case of pipex(4) is isn't clear that the NET_LOCK() is necessary.
I guess, pipex(4) was wrapped by NET_LOCK() to protect it while it’s
accessed through `pr_input’. Is NET_LOCK() required for this case?
