From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:12:22 +1000
> Dave, thanks for reminding me. Here it is.
>
> [NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
>
> Since we can still receive packets until all references to the
> socket are gone, we don't need to kill the CB until that
From: Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 14:12:22 +1000
Dave, thanks for reminding me. Here it is.
[NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
Since we can still receive packets until all references to the
socket are gone, we don't need to kill the CB until that
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:18:49PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>
> Herbert, could you refresh this refinement to the current
> tree?
Dave, thanks for reminding me. Here it is.
[NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
Since we can still receive packets until all references to the
socket
On Sat, Apr 28, 2007 at 11:18:49PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
Herbert, could you refresh this refinement to the current
tree?
Dave, thanks for reminding me. Here it is.
[NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
Since we can still receive packets until all references to the
socket are
From: Herbert Xu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:13:51 +1000
> [NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
>
> Since we can still receive packets until all references to the
> socket are gone, we don't need to kill the CB until that happens.
> This also aligns ourselves with the
From: Herbert Xu [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2007 12:13:51 +1000
[NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
Since we can still receive packets until all references to the
socket are gone, we don't need to kill the CB until that happens.
This also aligns ourselves with the receive
David Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> As discussed in this thread there might be other ways to a
> approach this, but this fix is good for now.
>
> Patch applied, thank you.
Actually I was going to suggest something like this:
[NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
Since we can
From: Pavel Emelianov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:16:18 +0400
> The proposal it to make sock_orphan before detaching the callback
> in netlink_release() and to check for the sock to be SOCK_DEAD in
> netlink_dump_start() before setting a new callback.
As discussed in this
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:16:50AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > That is what I referred to as error path. Btw, with positive return
> > value we end up in subsequent call to input which will free callback
> > under lock as expected.
>
>
> No, nothing is going to call
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:50:42AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
>>>I thought that with releasing a socket, which will have a callback
>>>attached only results in a leak of the callback? In that case we can
>>>just free it in dump() just like it
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:03:56PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> > Yes, you are right, that it will not be freed in netlink_release(),
> > but it will be freed in netlink_dump() after it is processed (in no-error
> > path only though).
> >
>
> But error path will leak
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:50:42AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> >>It already does (netlink_destroy_callback), but that doesn't help
> >>with this race though since without this patch we don't enter the
> >>error path.
> >
> > I thought that with releasing a socket, which
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:32:40PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL
>>> PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:26:31AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
>>>Out of curiosity, why not to fix a netlink_dump_start() to remove
>>>callback in error path, since in 'no-error' path it removes it in
>>>netlink_dump().
>>
>>
>>It already does
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:32:40PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >> Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
> >>
> >> There is
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:26:31AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL
> > PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >
> >>Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
> >>
> >>There
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
>>
>>There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
>>that can lead to the situation when a
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> wrote:
>> Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
>>
>> There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
>> that can lead to the situation when a
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
>
> There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
> that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
>
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
callback is freed.
Here it is:
CPU1: CPU2
netlink_release():
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
callback is freed.
Here it is:
CPU1: CPU2
netlink_release():
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
that can lead to the situation when a netlink socket with non-zero
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
that can lead to the situation when a netlink
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
There is a race between netlink_dump_start() and netlink_release()
that can lead to the situation when a netlink
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:26:31AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
There is a race
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:32:40PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
There is a race between
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:26:31AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Out of curiosity, why not to fix a netlink_dump_start() to remove
callback in error path, since in 'no-error' path it removes it in
netlink_dump().
It already does
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:32:40PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16:18PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL
PROTECTED]) wrote:
Sorry, I forgot to put netdev and David in Cc when I first sent it.
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:50:42AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
It already does (netlink_destroy_callback), but that doesn't help
with this race though since without this patch we don't enter the
error path.
I thought that with releasing a socket, which will have a
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:03:56PM +0400, Pavel Emelianov ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
Yes, you are right, that it will not be freed in netlink_release(),
but it will be freed in netlink_dump() after it is processed (in no-error
path only though).
But error path will leak it. On
Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 10:50:42AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
I thought that with releasing a socket, which will have a callback
attached only results in a leak of the callback? In that case we can
just free it in dump() just like it is done in
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 11:16:50AM +0200, Patrick McHardy ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
That is what I referred to as error path. Btw, with positive return
value we end up in subsequent call to input which will free callback
under lock as expected.
No, nothing is going to call
From: Pavel Emelianov [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:16:18 +0400
The proposal it to make sock_orphan before detaching the callback
in netlink_release() and to check for the sock to be SOCK_DEAD in
netlink_dump_start() before setting a new callback.
As discussed in this thread
David Miller [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As discussed in this thread there might be other ways to a
approach this, but this fix is good for now.
Patch applied, thank you.
Actually I was going to suggest something like this:
[NETLINK]: Kill CB only when socket is unused
Since we can still
34 matches
Mail list logo
