On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 01:49:22AM +0200, Alexandr Nedvedicky wrote: > Currently we need to keep pf_rm_rule() under both locks. The function > might be calling pf_tag_unref(), pf_dynaddr_remove()... which alter lists, > which are currently supposed to be protected by PF_LOCK()/NET_LOCK(). Yup.
> updated diff is below. pf_rm_rule() is being called with both locks held. OK kn
