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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox