On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 09:13:36AM -0700, Roopa Prabhu wrote:
> >>>> diff --git a/net/mpls/mpls_iptunnel.c b/net/mpls/mpls_iptunnel.c
> >>>> index fb31aa8..802956b 100644
> >>>> --- a/net/mpls/mpls_iptunnel.c
> >>>> +++ b/net/mpls/mpls_iptunnel.c
> >>>> @@ -105,12 +105,15 @@ static int mpls_output(struct net *net, struct
> >>>> sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb)
> >>>> bos = false;
> >>>> }
> >>>>
> >>>> + rcu_read_lock_bh();
> >>>> if (rt)
> >>>> err = neigh_xmit(NEIGH_ARP_TABLE, out_dev,
> >>>> &rt->rt_gateway,
> >>>> skb);
> >>>> else if (rt6)
> >>>> err = neigh_xmit(NEIGH_ND_TABLE, out_dev,
> >>>> &rt6->rt6i_gateway,
> >>>> skb);
> >>>> + rcu_read_unlock_bh();
> >>>> +
> >>>> if (err)
> >>>> net_dbg_ratelimited("%s: packet transmission failed:
> >>>> %d\n",
> >>>> __func__, err);
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> I think those need to be added to neigh_xmit in the
> >>>
> >>> if (likely(index < NEIGH_NR_TABLES)) {
> >>>
> >>> }
> >>
> >>
> >> That'll force callers that don't need the extra protection (i.e.
> >> mpls_forward(), since that always runs from softirq and it's enough
> >> to protect the neigh state with rcu_read_lock() from softirq and we're
> >> already running under rcu_read_lock() when we get to neigh_xmit()) to
> >> eat the useless overhead of an extra rcu_read_{,un}lock_bh() pair, but
> >> sure, functionally that's correct, I think, and in my workload I don't
> >> care about MPLS forwarding performance anyway. ;-)
> >
> >
> > __neigh_lookup_noref expects bh level protection. Since the if block in
> > neigh_xmit requires the locking seems like this the appropriate place for
> > it.
> >
> >>
> >> Want me to send a patch moving it to neigh_xmit() ?
> >
> >
> > Roopa/Robert: agree?
>
> yes, seems like an appropriate place for it. provided it does not add
> unnecessary overhead for others.
> But then neigh_xmit seems to be only called from mpls_output and mpls_forward.
OK, patch coming up. Thanks!
