On Mon 14 May 2018 at 16:23, Jiri Pirko <j...@resnulli.us> wrote:
> Mon, May 14, 2018 at 04:27:06PM CEST, vla...@mellanox.com wrote:
>>Without rtnl lock protection it is no longer safe to use pointer to tc
>>action without holding reference to it. (it can be destroyed concurrently)
>>
>>Remove unsafe action idr lookup function. Instead of it, implement safe tcf
>>idr check function that atomically looks up action in idr and increments
>>its reference and bind counters.
>>
>>Implement both action search and check using new safe function.
>>
>>Signed-off-by: Vlad Buslov <vla...@mellanox.com>
>>---
>> net/sched/act_api.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>
>>diff --git a/net/sched/act_api.c b/net/sched/act_api.c
>>index 1331beb..9459cce 100644
>>--- a/net/sched/act_api.c
>>+++ b/net/sched/act_api.c
>>@@ -284,44 +284,38 @@ int tcf_generic_walker(struct tc_action_net *tn, struct
>>sk_buff *skb,
>> }
>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcf_generic_walker);
>>
>>-static struct tc_action *tcf_idr_lookup(u32 index, struct tcf_idrinfo
>>*idrinfo)
>>+bool __tcf_idr_check(struct tc_action_net *tn, u32 index, struct tc_action
>>**a,
>>+ int bind)
>> {
>>- struct tc_action *p = NULL;
>>+ struct tcf_idrinfo *idrinfo = tn->idrinfo;
>>+ struct tc_action *p;
>>
>> spin_lock_bh(&idrinfo->lock);
>
> Why "_bh" variant is necessary here?
It is not my code.
>
>> p = idr_find(&idrinfo->action_idr, index);
>>+ if (p) {
>>+ refcount_inc(&p->tcfa_refcnt);
>>+ if (bind)
>>+ atomic_inc(&p->tcfa_bindcnt);
>>+ }
>> spin_unlock_bh(&idrinfo->lock);
>
> [...]
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
