From: Evgeniy Polyakov <johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru>
To: Daniel Drake <dsd@gentoo.org>
Cc: Herbert Xu <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>,
netdev@vger.kernel.org, david-b@pacbell.net
Subject: Re: netif_tx_disable vs netif_stop_queue (possible races?)
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2006 21:15:40 +0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060610171540.GA16820@2ka.mipt.ru> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <448AF607.8000603@gentoo.org>
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 05:40:39PM +0100, Daniel Drake (dsd@gentoo.org) wrote:
> Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> >On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 01:42:21PM +0100, Daniel Drake (dsd@gentoo.org)
> >wrote:
> >>Herbert Xu wrote:
> >>>Correct. All callers of hard_start_xmit do so under RCU or equivalent
> >>>locks so they must be complete by the time synchronize_net() returns.
> >>Does this hold for other operations? Such as:
> >>
> >>- The netdev->set_mac_address function
> >>- The wireless ioctl's (SIOCSIWESSID, etc)
> >>
> >>Are these also guaranteed to have returned after synchronize_net()?
> >
> >None of above calls is protected with RCU (except set_mac_address()
> >called through ioctl, which is performed under read_lock which disables
> >preemtption), so they still can run after synchronize_net().
> >
> >But if you are talking about synchronize_net() inside
> >unregister_netdevice(), which is called from
> >usbnet_disconnect()->unregister_netdev(), than it is safe.
>
> Are you referring to set_mac_address in the above statement, or both
> set_mac_address *and* the wireless ioctls?
oth calls have the same nature actually, and both calls are not
protected by RCU.
> I'm basically just looking to clarify that after unregister_netdev has
> completed, none of the following can be still in progress on any CPU,
> and none of the following can be triggered again:
>
> 1. hard_start_xmit handler
> 2. set_mac_address handler
> 3. WX ioctls
>
> It's logical that this is the case, but the code doesn't make that very
> clear (and would certainly result in many potential ZD1211 races if this
> was not the case).
set_mac_address() and wireless ioctls are protected by rtnl.
unregister_netdevice() is called under rtnl protection too.
But hard_start_xmit() is not protected (and can not be protected in all
situations) by sleeping semaphore (like rtnl),
so instead it runs under RCU, which is synchronized in synchronize_net()
inside unregister_netdevice().
> Daniel
--
Evgeniy Polyakov
prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-06-10 17:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-06-08 23:14 netif_tx_disable vs netif_stop_queue (possible races?) Daniel Drake
2006-06-09 4:41 ` Herbert Xu
2006-06-09 15:29 ` Daniel Drake
2006-06-09 23:35 ` Herbert Xu
2006-06-10 12:42 ` Daniel Drake
2006-06-10 12:59 ` Evgeniy Polyakov
2006-06-10 16:40 ` Daniel Drake
2006-06-10 17:15 ` Evgeniy Polyakov [this message]
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=20060610171540.GA16820@2ka.mipt.ru \
--to=johnpol@2ka.mipt.ru \
--cc=david-b@pacbell.net \
--cc=dsd@gentoo.org \
--cc=herbert@gondor.apana.org.au \
--cc=netdev@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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).