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 16:24:58 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1245263058.31588.38.camel@johannes.local> <1245276899.31588.57.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: <1245276899.31588.57.camel-YfaajirXv2244ywRPIzf9A@public.gmane.org> (Johannes Berg's message of "Thu\, 18 Jun 2009 00\:14\:59 +0200") Sender: linux-wireless-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Johannes Berg writes: > On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 13:46 -0700, Eric W. Biederman wrote: >> Johannes Berg writes: >> >> > This makes wireless extensions netns aware. >> > >> > Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg >> > --- >> > Is this ok, or is this racy? I guess what I'm asking is -- will >> > for_each_net() stop iterating over a netns that is going away before the >> > pernet exit op is called? If yes, this should be fine. >> >> for_each_net requires the rtnl_lock or the net_mutex to be safe. >> You aren't taking either so your code is racy. > > 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? 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