On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 09:05:35AM -0600, David Ahern wrote:
> On 10/26/16 12:39 AM, [email protected] wrote:
> > From: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]>
> >
> > netdev_next_lower_dev() returns NULL when we finished traversing the
> > adjacency list ('iter' points to the list's head). Therefore, we must
> > start traversing the list from the first entry and not its head.
> >
> > Fixes: 1a3f060c1a47 ("net: Introduce new api for walking upper and lower
> > devices")
> > Signed-off-by: Ido Schimmel <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > net/core/dev.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> > index f55fb45..d9c937f 100644
> > --- a/net/core/dev.c
> > +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> > @@ -5419,7 +5419,7 @@ int netdev_walk_all_lower_dev(struct net_device *dev,
> > struct list_head *iter;
> > int ret;
> >
> > - for (iter = &dev->adj_list.lower,
> > + for (iter = dev->adj_list.lower.next,
> > ldev = netdev_next_lower_dev(dev, &iter);
> > ldev;
> > ldev = netdev_next_lower_dev(dev, &iter)) {
> >
>
> How about this instead? It keeps the 3 walk functions in sync modulo the rcu
> reference:
I don't see any problem, so I guess it will work as well. I simply
preferred to use the same convention employed prior to your patchset.
Please submit yours formally, if you prefer.
>
>
> diff --git a/net/core/dev.c b/net/core/dev.c
> index f55fb4536016..6aa43cd8cbb5 100644
> --- a/net/core/dev.c
> +++ b/net/core/dev.c
> @@ -5400,12 +5400,12 @@ static struct net_device
> *netdev_next_lower_dev(struct net_device *dev,
> {
> struct netdev_adjacent *lower;
>
> - lower = list_entry(*iter, struct netdev_adjacent, list);
> + lower = list_entry((*iter)->next, struct netdev_adjacent, list);
>
> if (&lower->list == &dev->adj_list.lower)
> return NULL;
>
> - *iter = lower->list.next;
> + *iter = &lower->list;
>
> return lower->dev;
> }
