On 05/27/2011 01:15 PM, David Miller wrote:

From: Eric Dumazet<redacted>
Date: Fri, 27 May 2011 22:08:41 +0200

quoted

Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 à 21:11 -0700, Ben Greear a écrit :

quoted

On 05/26/2011 08:42 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:

quoted

Le jeudi 26 mai 2011 à 16:55 -0700, greearb@candelatech.com a écrit :

quoted

quoted

   out_free:
   	kfree_skb(skb);
   out_unlock:
-	if (dev)
+	if (dev&&   need_rls_dev)
   		dev_put(dev);
   out:
   	return err;

Hmmm, I wonder why you want this Ben.

IMHO this is buggy, because we can sleep in this function.

We must take a ref on device (its really cheap these days, now we have a
percpu device refcnt)

Why must you take the reference?  And if we must, why isn't the
current code that assigns the prot_hook.dev without taking a
reference OK?

If we sleep, device can disappear under us.

The only way to not take a reference is to hold rcu_read_lock(), but
you're not allowed to sleep under rcu_read_lock().

You still have not addresses Ben's point.

Why is it ok for the po->prot_hook.dev handling to not take a
reference?  It's been doing this forever.  Ben is just borrowing this
behavior for his uses.

After some more research I think it happens to be OK because
->prot_hook.dev is used _only_ for pointer comparisons, it is never
actually dereferenced or used in any other way.  Probably, we should
just use ->ifindex for this.

It's easy enough to add a dev_hold() when I assign the skb instead
of looking it up in my patch, but perhaps it would be cleaner over all to
just hold a ref on the prot_hook.dev when it is originally assigned?

Thanks,
Ben

-- 
Ben Greear [off-list ref]
Candela Technologies Inc  http://www.candelatech.com