On 22.09.2016 15:03, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-09-22 at 13:03 +0200, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <han...@stressinduktion.org>
>> net/core/net_namespace.c | 2 ++
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>> diff --git a/net/core/net_namespace.c b/net/core/net_namespace.c
>> index 2c2eb1b629b11d..a2ace299f28355 100644
>> --- a/net/core/net_namespace.c
>> +++ b/net/core/net_namespace.c
>> @@ -758,9 +758,11 @@ static int __init net_ns_init(void)
>> + rtnl_lock();
>> rtnl_register(PF_UNSPEC, RTM_NEWNSID, rtnl_net_newid, NULL, NULL);
>> rtnl_register(PF_UNSPEC, RTM_GETNSID, rtnl_net_getid, rtnl_net_dumpid,
>> + rtnl_unlock();
>> return 0;
> Hi Hannes
> Why is this needed here, and not in other places ?
I found this during working on the file and actually saw no live issues
(belonged to another series which I just split up).
I don't think it is a big issue but wanted the writes to the
rtnl_msg_handlers array to be strictly serialized. I was working on
adding this to other places, too. Maybe better for net-next even?
Theoretically we would need to add a memory barriers to make sure we
don't publish uninitialized memory into the array if concurrent readers
of the array want to find their function pointers.
> Hint : A changelog always help reviewers and future bug hunting.
I will add that to v2.