* [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
@ 2012-12-06 17:34 ` Thomas Graf
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Graf @ 2012-12-06 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sctp; +Cc: netdev, Vlad Yasevich, Neil Horman
address_list is protected via the socket lock or RCU. Since we don't want
to take the socket lock for each assoc we dump in procfs a RCU read-side
critical section must be entered.
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
---
net/sctp/proc.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sctp/proc.c b/net/sctp/proc.c
index 9966e7b..ec9b0c8 100644
--- a/net/sctp/proc.c
+++ b/net/sctp/proc.c
@@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
primary = &peer->saddr;
}
- list_for_each_entry(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
addr = &laddr->a;
af = sctp_get_af_specific(addr->sa.sa_family);
if (primary && af->cmp_addr(addr, primary)) {
@@ -147,6 +148,7 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
}
af->seq_dump_addr(seq, addr);
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
/* Dump remote addresses of an association. */
--
1.7.11.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
@ 2012-12-06 17:34 ` Thomas Graf
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Graf @ 2012-12-06 17:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-sctp; +Cc: netdev, Vlad Yasevich, Neil Horman
address_list is protected via the socket lock or RCU. Since we don't want
to take the socket lock for each assoc we dump in procfs a RCU read-side
critical section must be entered.
Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
---
net/sctp/proc.c | 4 +++-
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/net/sctp/proc.c b/net/sctp/proc.c
index 9966e7b..ec9b0c8 100644
--- a/net/sctp/proc.c
+++ b/net/sctp/proc.c
@@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
primary = &peer->saddr;
}
- list_for_each_entry(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
+ rcu_read_lock();
+ list_for_each_entry_rcu(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
addr = &laddr->a;
af = sctp_get_af_specific(addr->sa.sa_family);
if (primary && af->cmp_addr(addr, primary)) {
@@ -147,6 +148,7 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
}
af->seq_dump_addr(seq, addr);
}
+ rcu_read_unlock();
}
/* Dump remote addresses of an association. */
--
1.7.11.7
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
2012-12-06 17:34 ` Thomas Graf
@ 2012-12-06 18:25 ` Vlad Yasevich
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Vlad Yasevich @ 2012-12-06 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Graf; +Cc: linux-sctp, netdev, Neil Horman
On 12/06/2012 12:34 PM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> address_list is protected via the socket lock or RCU. Since we don't want
> to take the socket lock for each assoc we dump in procfs a RCU read-side
> critical section must be entered.
>
> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
> Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
> ---
> net/sctp/proc.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/proc.c b/net/sctp/proc.c
> index 9966e7b..ec9b0c8 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/proc.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/proc.c
> @@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
> primary = &peer->saddr;
> }
>
> - list_for_each_entry(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
> addr = &laddr->a;
> af = sctp_get_af_specific(addr->sa.sa_family);
> if (primary && af->cmp_addr(addr, primary)) {
> @@ -147,6 +148,7 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
> }
> af->seq_dump_addr(seq, addr);
> }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> /* Dump remote addresses of an association. */
>
May want to avoid printing addresses that are !addr->valid.
Otherwise looks good.
-vlad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
@ 2012-12-06 18:25 ` Vlad Yasevich
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Vlad Yasevich @ 2012-12-06 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Graf; +Cc: linux-sctp, netdev, Neil Horman
On 12/06/2012 12:34 PM, Thomas Graf wrote:
> address_list is protected via the socket lock or RCU. Since we don't want
> to take the socket lock for each assoc we dump in procfs a RCU read-side
> critical section must be entered.
>
> Cc: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>
> Cc: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Thomas Graf <tgraf@suug.ch>
> ---
> net/sctp/proc.c | 4 +++-
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/proc.c b/net/sctp/proc.c
> index 9966e7b..ec9b0c8 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/proc.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/proc.c
> @@ -139,7 +139,8 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
> primary = &peer->saddr;
> }
>
> - list_for_each_entry(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
> + rcu_read_lock();
> + list_for_each_entry_rcu(laddr, &epb->bind_addr.address_list, list) {
> addr = &laddr->a;
> af = sctp_get_af_specific(addr->sa.sa_family);
> if (primary && af->cmp_addr(addr, primary)) {
> @@ -147,6 +148,7 @@ static void sctp_seq_dump_local_addrs(struct seq_file *seq, struct sctp_ep_commo
> }
> af->seq_dump_addr(seq, addr);
> }
> + rcu_read_unlock();
> }
>
> /* Dump remote addresses of an association. */
>
May want to avoid printing addresses that are !addr->valid.
Otherwise looks good.
-vlad
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
2012-12-06 18:25 ` Vlad Yasevich
@ 2012-12-06 18:28 ` Thomas Graf
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Graf @ 2012-12-06 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlad Yasevich; +Cc: linux-sctp, netdev, Neil Horman
On 12/06/12 at 01:25pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> May want to avoid printing addresses that are !addr->valid.
>
> Otherwise looks good.
Good point, I'll send a follow-up patch if that is OK. Same
applies to dead transports obviously.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
@ 2012-12-06 18:28 ` Thomas Graf
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Thomas Graf @ 2012-12-06 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Vlad Yasevich; +Cc: linux-sctp, netdev, Neil Horman
On 12/06/12 at 01:25pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> May want to avoid printing addresses that are !addr->valid.
>
> Otherwise looks good.
Good point, I'll send a follow-up patch if that is OK. Same
applies to dead transports obviously.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
2012-12-06 18:28 ` Thomas Graf
@ 2012-12-06 19:16 ` Neil Horman
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2012-12-06 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Graf; +Cc: Vlad Yasevich, linux-sctp, netdev
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:28:40PM +0000, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 12/06/12 at 01:25pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > May want to avoid printing addresses that are !addr->valid.
> >
> > Otherwise looks good.
>
> Good point, I'll send a follow-up patch if that is OK. Same
> applies to dead transports obviously.
Assuming a followup patch to avoid dead addresses..
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock()
@ 2012-12-06 19:16 ` Neil Horman
0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Neil Horman @ 2012-12-06 19:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thomas Graf; +Cc: Vlad Yasevich, linux-sctp, netdev
On Thu, Dec 06, 2012 at 06:28:40PM +0000, Thomas Graf wrote:
> On 12/06/12 at 01:25pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > May want to avoid printing addresses that are !addr->valid.
> >
> > Otherwise looks good.
>
> Good point, I'll send a follow-up patch if that is OK. Same
> applies to dead transports obviously.
Assuming a followup patch to avoid dead addresses..
Acked-by: Neil Horman <nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-sctp" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2012-12-06 19:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2012-12-06 17:34 [PATCH] sctp: proc: protect bind_addr->address_list accesses with rcu_read_lock() Thomas Graf
2012-12-06 17:34 ` Thomas Graf
2012-12-06 18:25 ` Vlad Yasevich
2012-12-06 18:25 ` Vlad Yasevich
2012-12-06 18:28 ` Thomas Graf
2012-12-06 18:28 ` Thomas Graf
2012-12-06 19:16 ` Neil Horman
2012-12-06 19:16 ` Neil Horman
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.