From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: route.c:645 suspicious rcu_dereference_check() Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:54:38 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20120831.165438.225646535977371251.davem@davemloft.net> References: <1346193187.3571.21.camel@edumazet-glaptop> <20120830.133433.566450758375930776.davem@davemloft.net> <1346413814.2591.7.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: proski@gnu.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: eric.dumazet@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([149.20.54.216]:53555 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752326Ab2HaUyk (ORCPT ); Fri, 31 Aug 2012 16:54:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1346413814.2591.7.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Eric Dumazet Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2012 04:50:14 -0700 > On Thu, 2012-08-30 at 13:34 -0400, David Miller wrote: >> From: Eric Dumazet >> Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2012 15:33:07 -0700 >> >> > From: Eric Dumazet >> > >> > [PATCH] ipv4: must use rcu protection while calling fib_lookup >> > >> > Following lockdep splat was reported by Pavel Roskin : >> ... >> > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet >> > Reported-by: Pavel Roskin >> >> Applied, thanks. >> >> It looks like the redirect handlers might have the same problem? > > Hi David > > Correct me if I am wrong, but redirect handlers should all run under > rcu_read_lock() protection already. > > rcu_read_lock() is done in ip_local_deliver_finish() or > ip_rt_send_redirect() for the forward path. > > And above of them, we also have rcu_read_lock() done in > __netif_receive_skb() Indeed, you're right, thanks.