From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pablo Neira Ayuso Subject: Re: [PATCH nf V2] netfilter: nf_ct_helper: permit cthelpers with different names via nfnetlink Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:57:02 +0200 Message-ID: <20170413235702.GA10583@salvia> References: <1490792404-6035-1-git-send-email-zlpnobody@163.com> <20170413222914.GA5089@salvia> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Liping Zhang , Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Liping Zhang Return-path: Received: from mail.us.es ([193.147.175.20]:59884 "EHLO mail.us.es" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753227AbdDMX5L (ORCPT ); Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:57:11 -0400 Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (unknown [192.168.2.11]) by mail.us.es (Postfix) with ESMTP id 794D2C124D for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:57:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 692B5DA862 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:57:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from antivirus1-rhel7.int (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by antivirus1-rhel7.int (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E68ADA848 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2017 01:57:04 +0200 (CEST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Fri, Apr 14, 2017 at 07:50:26AM +0800, Liping Zhang wrote: > Hi Pablo, > > 2017-04-14 6:29 GMT+08:00 Pablo Neira Ayuso : > [...] > >> After I have a closer look, inside hlist_for_each_entry_rcu, we use the > >> rcu_dereference_raw() to get the pointer, and this will not generate warning: > >> > >> #define hlist_for_each_entry_rcu(pos, head, member) \ > >> for (pos = hlist_entry_safe (rcu_dereference_raw(hlist_first_rcu(head)),\ > >> typeof(*(pos)), member); > >> .... > >> > >> Then "This is likely going to spot false positives with the RCU > >> debugging instrumentation" > >> will not happen. > > > > Right, instrumentation will not trigger any problem. > > > > But even if instrumention is not a problem, I just would like to avoid > > people sending me "obvious" fixes afterwards, by removing _rcu since > > they see this code runs under mutex or how knows what. > > I'm a little confusing about this one. > > I found "http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/744786/" and > "http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/743472/" were both set > to "Changes Requested". > > So which one is you prefer to :)? What's next step should I do? The latter, please resubmit bumping your version number and log. That makes things easier for me than going back and forth trying to figure out what I should do, thanks!