Re: [PATCH net-next v4 11/14] net: bridge: mcast: track active state, prepare for outside lock reads
From: Ido Schimmel <idosch@nvidia.com>
Date: 2026-03-09 16:17:34
Also in:
bridge, linux-kselftest, lkml
On Sat, Mar 07, 2026 at 05:45:45AM +0100, Linus Lüssing wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
We are updating ip{4,6}_active and check all variables their state relies on while holding the bridge multicast spinlock. However we are going to read it without this lock in a follow-up commit on fast/data path, too. As these variables are only booleans this shouldn't be a problem, ip{4,6}_active will be loaded and stored atomically. And those read sides should converge eventually. But to allow tooling to verify this use the READ_ONCE() and WRITE_ONCE macros. Signed-off-by: Linus Lüssing <redacted> --- net/bridge/br_multicast.c | 24 ++++++++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)diff --git a/net/bridge/br_multicast.c b/net/bridge/br_multicast.c index cb78f9555db6..6faa484dede7 100644 --- a/net/bridge/br_multicast.c +++ b/net/bridge/br_multicast.c@@ -1085,9 +1085,10 @@ static void br_ip4_multicast_update_active(struct net_bridge_mcast *brmctx, bool force_inactive) { if (force_inactive) - brmctx->ip4_active = false; + WRITE_ONCE(brmctx->ip4_active, false); else - brmctx->ip4_active = br_ip4_multicast_querier_exists(brmctx); + WRITE_ONCE(brmctx->ip4_active, + br_ip4_multicast_querier_exists(brmctx)); } static void br_ip6_multicast_update_active(struct net_bridge_mcast *brmctx,@@ -1095,23 +1096,26 @@ static void br_ip6_multicast_update_active(struct net_bridge_mcast *brmctx, { #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6) if (force_inactive) - brmctx->ip6_active = false; + WRITE_ONCE(brmctx->ip6_active, false); else - brmctx->ip6_active = br_ip6_multicast_querier_exists(brmctx); + WRITE_ONCE(brmctx->ip6_active, + br_ip6_multicast_querier_exists(brmctx)); #endif } static void br_multicast_notify_active(struct net_bridge_mcast *brmctx, bool ip4_active_old, bool ip6_active_old) { - if (brmctx->ip4_active == ip4_active_old && - brmctx->ip6_active == ip6_active_old) + int ip4_active = brmctx->ip4_active; + int ip6_active = brmctx->ip6_active; + + if (ip4_active == ip4_active_old && + ip6_active == ip6_active_old) return; br_debug(brmctx->br, "mc_active changed, vid: %i: v4: %i->%i, v6: %i->%i\n", brmctx->vlan ? brmctx->vlan->vid : -1, - ip4_active_old, brmctx->ip4_active, - ip6_active_old, brmctx->ip6_active); + ip4_active_old, ip4_active, ip6_active_old, ip6_active); }
This hunk seems unnecessary? Pretty sure you can leave this function as-is.
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
/**@@ -4269,7 +4273,7 @@ void br_multicast_ctx_init(struct net_bridge *br, brmctx->multicast_membership_interval = 260 * HZ; brmctx->ip4_querier.port_ifidx = 0; - brmctx->ip4_active = 0; + WRITE_ONCE(brmctx->ip4_active, 0); seqcount_spinlock_init(&brmctx->ip4_querier.seq, &br->multicast_lock); brmctx->multicast_igmp_version = 2; #if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6)@@ -4277,7 +4281,7 @@ void br_multicast_ctx_init(struct net_bridge *br, brmctx->ip6_querier.port_ifidx = 0; seqcount_spinlock_init(&brmctx->ip6_querier.seq, &br->multicast_lock); #endif - brmctx->ip6_active = 0; + WRITE_ONCE(brmctx->ip6_active, 0);
Is this necessary? Who can read the active states while the multicast context is still be initialized?
timer_setup(&brmctx->ip4_mc_router_timer, NULL, 0); timer_setup(&brmctx->ip4_other_query.timer, NULL, 0); -- 2.53.0