From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [NET] ROUTE: fix rcu_dereference() uses in /proc/net/rt_cache Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 13:31:32 +0100 Message-ID: <20080111123132.GC2708@ff.dom.local> References: <20080109113727.50eae500.dada1@cosmosbay.com> <20080110231042.GA3199@ami.dom.local> <20080111000020.GB22040@gondor.apana.org.au> <20080111083010.GA2183@ff.dom.local> <20080111103742.GA26740@gondor.apana.org.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Eric Dumazet , "Paul E. McKenney" , davem@davemloft.net, dipankar@in.ibm.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: Herbert Xu Return-path: Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com ([66.249.92.168]:3876 "EHLO ug-out-1314.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757925AbYAKMZW (ORCPT ); Fri, 11 Jan 2008 07:25:22 -0500 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id z38so461934ugc.16 for ; Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:25:20 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080111103742.GA26740@gondor.apana.org.au> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:37:42PM +1100, Herbert Xu wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2008 at 09:30:10AM +0100, Jarek Poplawski wrote: > > > > It looks like I'm really too lazy and/or these selfdocumenting features > > of RCU are a bit overrated: one can never be sure which pointer is > > really RCU protected without checking a few places?! So, after looking > > at this rt_cache_get_next() and this patch only, it's looks like the > > third candidate after seq->private and rtable... > > Perhaps we could introduce a sparse attribute for it? I hope I won't be cursed by all those forced to additional writing, so I'd only admit that after this patch there should be no problem with identifying RCU protected data properly (maybe only this kind of rcu_dereference() needs some popularization). Jarek P.