On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 12:38:57 +0200
Eric Dumazet <[email protected]> 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);
_______________________________________________
Bridge mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bridge
