From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vasily Averin Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] ipmr_free_table() should be called under taken rtnl_lock Date: Wed, 08 Jul 2015 13:29:43 +0300 Message-ID: <559CFB97.4020701@virtuozzo.com> References: <559BF613.7090904@virtuozzo.com> <559C0B7E.8010108@virtuozzo.com> <559C120F.7020709@virtuozzo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: "David S. Miller" , Linux Kernel Network Developers , Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Cong Wang Return-path: Received: from mailhub.sw.ru ([195.214.232.25]:21727 "EHLO relay.sw.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932693AbbGHKal (ORCPT ); Wed, 8 Jul 2015 06:30:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: <559C120F.7020709@virtuozzo.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07.07.2015 20:53, Vasily Averin wrote: > On 07.07.2015 20:30, Cong Wang wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Vasily Averin wrote: >>> On 07.07.2015 20:13, Cong Wang wrote: >>>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Vasily Averin wrote: >>>>> ipmr_free_table() calls unregister_netdevice_many() inside >>>>> and changes net_todo_list protected by rtnl_lock >>>> >>>> Did you see any real bug? >>> >>> No, it was result of manual code review. >>> >>>> ipmr_free_table() is called in failure path, in this case there is no >>>> device registered yet, so unregister should be just a nop? >>> >>> However may be it's better to mark this place for future anyway? >> >> Then add a comment there. ;) > > As you can see I'm not familiar with this code, > so I would like to ask you to do it. :) Seems I've found a better idea: to add ASSERT_RTNL() into unregister_netdevice_many()