On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 2:28 AM, Krister Johansen
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:01:38AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Does the attached patch make any sense now? Our pernet init doesn't
>> rely on act_base, so even we have some race, the worst case is after
>> we
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 11:13 PM, Krister Johansen
wrote:
> Hi Cong,
> Thanks for the follow-up.
>
> On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:01:15PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Krister Johansen
>> > pernet_operations pointer. The code in
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:01:38AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Does the attached patch make any sense now? Our pernet init doesn't
> rely on act_base, so even we have some race, the worst case is after
> we initialize the pernet netns for an action but its ops still not
> visible, which seems fine
Hi Cong,
Thanks for the follow-up.
On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 12:01:15PM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Krister Johansen
> > pernet_operations pointer. The code in register_pernet_subsys() makes
> > no attempt to check for duplicates. If we add a pointer that's already
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:11 PM, Krister Johansen
wrote:
>
> I'm not sure. The reason I didn't take this approach from the outset is
> that all of TC's callers of tcf_register_action pass a pointer to a
> static structure as their *ops argument. The existence of code
On Wed, Oct 05, 2016 at 11:01:38AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Krister Johansen
> wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:22:33AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> Please try the attached patch. I also convert the read path to RCU
> >> to avoid a
On Wed, Oct 5, 2016 at 11:01 AM, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Krister Johansen
> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:22:33AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>>> Please try the attached patch. I also convert the read path to RCU
On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 11:52 PM, Krister Johansen
wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:22:33AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
>> Please try the attached patch. I also convert the read path to RCU
>> to avoid a possible deadlock. A quick test shows no lockdep splat.
>
> I tried
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:22:33AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> Please try the attached patch. I also convert the read path to RCU
> to avoid a possible deadlock. A quick test shows no lockdep splat.
I tried this patch, but it doesn't solve the problem. I got a panic on
my very first try:
SYSTEM
Hi Cong,
Thanks for the feedback.
On Mon, Oct 03, 2016 at 11:22:33AM -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Krister Johansen
> wrote:
> > A tc_action_ops structure is visibile as soon as it is placed in the
> > act_base list. When tcf_regsiter_action
On Sun, Oct 02, 2016 at 09:18:06PM -0400, Jamal Hadi Salim wrote:
> On 16-10-01 11:13 PM, Krister Johansen wrote:
> >A tc_action_ops structure is visibile as soon as it is placed in the
> >act_base list. When tcf_regsiter_action adds an item to this list and
> >drops act_mod_lock, registration is
On Sat, Oct 1, 2016 at 8:13 PM, Krister Johansen
wrote:
> A tc_action_ops structure is visibile as soon as it is placed in the
> act_base list. When tcf_regsiter_action adds an item to this list and
> drops act_mod_lock, registration is not complete until
>
On 16-10-01 11:13 PM, Krister Johansen wrote:
A tc_action_ops structure is visibile as soon as it is placed in the
act_base list. When tcf_regsiter_action adds an item to this list and
drops act_mod_lock, registration is not complete until
register_pernet_subsys() finishes.
If two threads
A tc_action_ops structure is visibile as soon as it is placed in the
act_base list. When tcf_regsiter_action adds an item to this list and
drops act_mod_lock, registration is not complete until
register_pernet_subsys() finishes.
If two threads attempt to modify a tc action in a way that triggers
14 matches
Mail list logo