From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa Subject: Re: RTNL: assertion failed at net/ipv6/addrconf.c (1699) Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2014 19:58:04 +0200 Message-ID: <1409680684.972417.162793869.03CF8A61@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20140829195339.GA9780@kria> <1409363489.2980.17.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Sabrina Dubroca , Tommi Rantala , "David S. Miller" , Alexey Kuznetsov , James Morris , Hideaki YOSHIFUJI , Patrick McHardy , netdev , LKML , trinity@vger.kernel.org, Dave Jones To: Cong Wang Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: trinity-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Hi Cong, On Tue, Sep 2, 2014, at 18:50, Cong Wang wrote: > On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 6:51 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa > wrote: > > > > Also rtnl_lock and rcu_read_lock compose in that order, so we don't need > > to change dev_get_by_flags, but as this is the only user it sure is > > possible. RCU locked version is just easier composeable, so I wouldn't > > touch that if needed in future, just also take rcu lock as before. > > There is no point to keep RCU read lock if we have rtnl lock, > I don't know why you don't want to change dev_get_by_flags(), > it is pretty easy to do since it only has one caller. I definitely don't have a problem cleaning this up in net-next. I wanted a minimal patch for stable because I didn't check history where and when additional users of dev_get_by_flags_rcu were removed. > Even if you really need RCU in future, you are always welcome > to bring it back when you do, sorry we should never be blocked by > code NOT merged yet. > > > > > Also we should move ASSERT_RTNL checks from addrconf_join_solict to > > ipv6_dev_mc_inc/dec. > > > > Make it another patch. It is just one logical change, moving ASSERT_RTNLs to places where they better catch invalid callstacks. Bye, Hannes