From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Veaceslav Falico Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 net-next 01/12] bonding: remove bond->lock from bond_arp_rcv Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 08:10:29 +0100 Message-ID: <20140218071029.GB14534@redhat.com> References: <1392648088-21336-1-git-send-email-vfalico@redhat.com> <1392648088-21336-2-git-send-email-vfalico@redhat.com> <5302DB61.4070505@huawei.com> <20140218061222.GA18373@redhat.com> <530306C2.1050003@huawei.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh , Andy Gospodarek To: Ding Tianhong Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59975 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751020AbaBRHYd (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Feb 2014 02:24:33 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <530306C2.1050003@huawei.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 03:07:46PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >On 2014/2/18 14:12, Veaceslav Falico wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 12:02:41PM +0800, Ding Tianhong wrote: >>> On 2014/2/17 22:41, Veaceslav Falico wrote: =2E..snip... >>> I think it is not enough, you should add rcu_dereference for bond->= curr_active_slave, it may be changed during >>> the recv processing. >> >> bond->lock has absolutely nothing to du with bond->curr_active_slave= . >> >Yep, this problem is introduced by commit aeea64ac7=EF=BC=8C there is = no way to protect the curr_active_slave, so >I think you could fix it in this patch together. > > else if (bond->curr_active_slave && > time_after(slave_last_rx(bond, bond->curr_active_slave), > bond->curr_active_slave->jiffies)) It's not related to this patchset, but yeah, I'll send a fix afterwards= =2E >>> >>> Regards >>> Ding >>> >>> >> >> > >