From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E407D1DDEE for ; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:39:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="hS0nCv4q" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3F5AEC433C7; Tue, 24 Oct 2023 22:39:42 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1698187182; bh=MdrQ0drZMhMlMKUB/NpYgz/Yd6ojmydmi+DwKzo0HpA=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=hS0nCv4qtaXnuQBu6YTzMXeouIrX6Y3a8J4jbdYabJ5Z1MBlYHEaS0SwFUU31XRE5 NkyML23UfWNXg/vBnPMLTt3PyEyo0RY7XHzYAHfuaUEP8dYgq1VBbPr5WjvfPyCnuc jS6mU0+/ocMfRQPEddpOgLQd4Apo2Z9NSbj0O82B55qDbvPV2+VpC/eE9XlxXgZKZG ykuUNH5FbisEL6ZMMzI8HSv20H+pFiNacTg1z8D852Ym5E86EE+j4QKE+6L9dtIUVe HpaNYSHY5bKSSVolL0NPI4L8cbljWC+7oyQwBgeuiQafIZI5nQPA0W81OuvAdAEb20 cEgCsW4kk5J5w== Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2023 15:39:41 -0700 From: Jakub Kicinski To: Amritha Nambiar Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, sridhar.samudrala@intel.com Subject: Re: [net-next PATCH v6 06/10] netdev-genl: Add netlink framework functions for napi Message-ID: <20231024153941.4c05da4b@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <169811123039.59034.9768807608201356902.stgit@anambiarhost.jf.intel.com> References: <169811096816.59034.13985871730113977096.stgit@anambiarhost.jf.intel.com> <169811123039.59034.9768807608201356902.stgit@anambiarhost.jf.intel.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Mon, 23 Oct 2023 18:33:50 -0700 Amritha Nambiar wrote: > + rcu_read_lock(); > + > + napi = napi_by_id(napi_id); > + if (napi) > + err = netdev_nl_napi_fill_one(rsp, napi, info); > + else > + err = -EINVAL; > + > + rcu_read_unlock(); Is rcu_read_lock always going to be sufficient here? Reading of the thread, for example, without much locking could potentially get problematic.