From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>
To: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, david-b@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: netif_tx_disable vs netif_stop_queue (possible races?)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:15:40 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060610171540.GA16820@2ka.mipt.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448AF607.8000603@gentoo.org>
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 05:40:39PM +0100, Daniel Drake (dsd@gentoo.org) wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Daniel Drake (dsd@gentoo.org)
> >wrote:
> >>Herbert Xu wrote:
> >>>Correct. All callers of hard_start_xmit do so under RCU or equivalent
> >>>locks so they must be complete by the time synchronize_net() returns.
> >>Does this hold for other operations? Such as:
> >>
> >>- The netdev->set_mac_address function
> >>- The wireless ioctl's (SIOCSIWESSID, etc)
> >>
> >>Are these also guaranteed to have returned after synchronize_net()?
> >
> >None of above calls is protected with RCU (except set_mac_address()
> >called through ioctl, which is performed under read_lock which disables
> >preemtption), so they still can run after synchronize_net().
> >
> >But if you are talking about synchronize_net() inside
> >unregister_netdevice(), which is called from
> >usbnet_disconnect()->unregister_netdev(), than it is safe.
>
> Are you referring to set_mac_address in the above statement, or both
> set_mac_address *and* the wireless ioctls?
oth calls have the same nature actually, and both calls are not
protected by RCU.
> I'm basically just looking to clarify that after unregister_netdev has
> completed, none of the following can be still in progress on any CPU,
> and none of the following can be triggered again:
>
> 1. hard_start_xmit handler
> 2. set_mac_address handler
> 3. WX ioctls
>
> It's logical that this is the case, but the code doesn't make that very
> clear (and would certainly result in many potential ZD1211 races if this
> was not the case).
set_mac_address() and wireless ioctls are protected by rtnl.
unregister_netdevice() is called under rtnl protection too.
But hard_start_xmit() is not protected (and can not be protected in all
situations) by sleeping semaphore (like rtnl),
so instead it runs under RCU, which is synchronized in synchronize_net()
inside unregister_netdevice().
> Daniel
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-10 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-08 23:14 netif_tx_disable vs netif_stop_queue (possible races?) Daniel Drake
2006-06-09 4:41 ` Herbert Xu
2006-06-09 15:29 ` Daniel Drake
2006-06-09 23:35 ` Herbert Xu
2006-06-10 12:42 ` Daniel Drake
2006-06-10 12:59 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2006-06-10 16:40 ` Daniel Drake
2006-06-10 17:15 ` Evgeniy Polyakov [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060610171540.GA16820@2ka.mipt.ru \
--to=johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru \
--cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=dsd@gentoo.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=netdev@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.