From: Wei Wang <wei...@google.com> Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2017 17:34:08 -0700
> From: Wei Wang <wei...@google.com> > > We currently keep rt->rt6i_node pointing to the fib6_node for the route. > And some functions make use of this pointer to dereference the fib6_node > from rt structure, e.g. rt6_check(). However, as there is neither > refcount nor rcu taken when dereferencing rt->rt6i_node, it could > potentially cause crashes as rt->rt6i_node could be set to NULL by other > CPUs when doing a route deletion. > This patch introduces an rcu grace period before freeing fib6_node and > makes sure the functions that dereference it takes rcu_read_lock(). > > Note: there is no "Fixes" tag because this bug was there in a very > early stage. > > Signed-off-by: Wei Wang <wei...@google.com> > Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com> > --- > v2: removed one extra empty line Goodness.... where to start. If this bug has been around forever, why did you make this patch against net-next instead of net? (I can tell just by looking at the patch because rt6_free_pcpu() is static in 'net' yet it is not static in the diff hunk which matches net-next) And if you made it against net-next, why are you saying "net" in your subject line instead of "[PATCH net-next v2]"? Please sort this out properly, and resubmit. Thank you.
