From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jiri Pirko Subject: Re: [Question] netfilter, xt_target->target and xt_target->checkentry locks Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 15:13:11 +0200 Message-ID: <20100609131310.GD2825@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> References: <20100609122114.GB2825@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> <20100609130045.GC2825@psychotron.lab.eng.brq.redhat.com> <4C0F9117.9060801@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C0F9117.9060801@trash.net> Sender: netfilter-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Patrick McHardy Cc: Jan Engelhardt , netfilter@vger.kernel.org, bart.de.schuymer@pandora.be, davem@davemloft.net, shemminger@vyatta.com Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 03:03:19PM CEST, kaber@trash.net wrote: >Jiri Pirko wrote: >> Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 02:37:51PM CEST, jengelh@medozas.de wrote: >> >>> On Wednesday 2010-06-09 14:21, Jiri Pirko wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Hi Patrick. >>>> >>>> Once module registers it's struct xt_target by xt_register_target and >>>> ->target and ->checkentry funtions are called later, is there any lock >>>> guaranteed to be held? >>>> >>> >From what I see for ->target it looks like rcu_read_lock is held, but >>> >>>> I'm not sure for all paths. There would be nice to put a comment into >>>> struct xt_target definition regarding locks. >>>> >>> Though nf_hook_slow invokes rcu_read_lock, that should not be a formal >>> guarantee that Xtables extensions run with RCU. See xt_TCPMSS for >>> example. >>> >> >> A was afraid of it. Thanks. > >We actually assume this in all conntrack helpers, so I don't see anything >wrong with making the same assumption in xtables modules, as long as >its documented. Where this is documented please?