From: Willy Tarreau <willy.lkml@free.fr>
To: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ?
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:36:19 +0100 (MET) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <974907379.3a1be7f3a0987@imp.free.fr> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <974885943.3a1b9437847da@imp.free.fr> <200011220946.BAA07355@pizda.ninka.net> <974892477.3a1badbdefd2d@imp.free.fr> <200011221127.DAA07699@pizda.ninka.net>
In-Reply-To: <200011221127.DAA07699@pizda.ninka.net>
> No, it guarentees that only one process may be in the middle
> of modifying interface configuration state, the same and only
> guarentee it makes in 2.4.x as well.
ok, Dave. But the code in dev_ioctl() actually is :
rtnl_lock();
ret = dev_ifsioc(&ifr, cmd);
rtnl_unlock();
if only these lock/unlock guarantee this atomicity, then I can't
see why my A,B,C case could not work. If this is because the
kernel has been locked somewhere else, then why are the locks
still needed ? The author of rtnetlink.h has been very precautious
about the atomicity of these locks when CONFIG_RTNETLINK is set. I
don't understand why this could change in other cases. For this
reason, I don't know what to write in my code ...
Regards,
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2000-11-22 16:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2000-11-22 9:39 [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ? Willy Tarreau
2000-11-22 9:46 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-22 11:27 ` Willy Tarreau
2000-11-22 11:27 ` David S. Miller
2000-11-22 15:36 ` Willy Tarreau [this message]
2000-11-22 18:09 ` kuznet
2000-11-23 6:14 ` Willy Tarreau
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=974907379.3a1be7f3a0987@imp.free.fr \
--to=willy.lkml@free.fr \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@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.