Re: [Patch net-next v2] ipv4: get rid of ip_ra_lock
From: Eric Dumazet <hidden>
Date: 2017-04-30 16:42:37
On Fri, 2017-04-28 at 10:04 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
After commit 1215e51edad1 ("ipv4: fix a deadlock in ip_ra_control") we always take RTNL lock for ip_ra_control() which is the only place we update the list ip_ra_chain, so the ip_ra_lock is no longer needed. As Eric points out, BH does not need to disable either, RCU readers don't care. Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <redacted> --- net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c | 9 +-------- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 8 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c index 1d46d05..4c25458 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c +++ b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c@@ -330,7 +330,6 @@ int ip_cmsg_send(struct sock *sk, struct msghdr *msg, struct ipcm_cookie *ipc, sent to multicast group to reach destination designated router. */ struct ip_ra_chain __rcu *ip_ra_chain; -static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ip_ra_lock); static void ip_ra_destroy_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)@@ -352,21 +351,17 @@ int ip_ra_control(struct sock *sk, unsigned char on, new_ra = on ? kmalloc(sizeof(*new_ra), GFP_KERNEL) : NULL; - spin_lock_bh(&ip_ra_lock); for (rap = &ip_ra_chain; - (ra = rcu_dereference_protected(*rap, - lockdep_is_held(&ip_ra_lock))) != NULL; + (ra = rtnl_dereference(*rap)) != NULL; rap = &ra->next) { if (ra->sk == sk) { if (on) { - spin_unlock_bh(&ip_ra_lock); kfree(new_ra); return -EADDRINUSE; } /* dont let ip_call_ra_chain() use sk again */ ra->sk = NULL; RCU_INIT_POINTER(*rap, ra->next); - spin_unlock_bh(&ip_ra_lock); if (ra->destructor) ra->destructor(sk);@@ -381,7 +376,6 @@ int ip_ra_control(struct sock *sk, unsigned char on, } } if (!new_ra) { - spin_unlock_bh(&ip_ra_lock); return -ENOBUFS; }
Minor point : You could have removed the {}
Acked-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
Thanks !