From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm-aS9lmoZGLiVWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless extensions: play with netns Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 17:27:19 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1245263058.31588.38.camel@johannes.local> <1245276899.31588.57.camel@johannes.local> <1245282099.31588.69.camel@johannes.local> <1245282315.31588.71.camel@johannes.local> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: John Linville , Netdev , linux-wireless , "Eric W. Biederman" , Alexey Dobriyan To: Johannes Berg Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1245282315.31588.71.camel-YfaajirXv2244ywRPIzf9A@public.gmane.org> (Johannes Berg's message of "Thu\, 18 Jun 2009 01\:45\:15 +0200") Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Johannes Berg writes: > On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 01:41 +0200, Johannes Berg wrote: >> On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 16:24 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> >> > > So it looks like I can also use rcu_read_lock(), but there's no >> > > for_each_net_rcu(), should there be? >> > >> > I'm not using rcu safe list manipulation. What makes it look like >> > rcu_read_lock() is safe? >> >> Indeed. I was looking at rcu_barrier() only. How about the patch below? > > With that, my genl patch can look like this: > > Subject: genetlink: make netns aware > > This makes generic netlink network namespace aware. > No actual generic netlink families are made namespace > aware, they need to be checked one by one and then > set the family->netnsok member to true. Are skb_clone and nlmsg_multicast really guaranteed not to sleep? That seems like a lot of code and a lot of code paths. Eric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-wireless" in the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html