On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:09 PM, Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:21 AM, Nixiaoming <nixiaom...@huawei.com> wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 10:46 AM, Willem de Bruijn >> >> <willemdebruijn.ker...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> In case of failure we also need to unlink and free match. I >> >>> sent the following: >> >>> >> >>> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/813945/ >> >> >> >> + spin_lock(&po->bind_lock); >> >> + if (po->running && >> >> + match->type == type && >> >> match->prot_hook.type == po->prot_hook.type && >> >> match->prot_hook.dev == po->prot_hook.dev) { >> >> err = -ENOSPC; >> >> @@ -1761,6 +1760,13 @@ static int fanout_add(struct sock *sk, u16 id, u16 >> type_flags) >> >> err = 0; >> >> } >> >> } >> >> + spin_unlock(&po->bind_lock); >> >> + >> >> + if (err && !refcount_read(&match->sk_ref)) { >> >> + list_del(&match->list); >> >> + kfree(match); >> >> + } >> >> >> >> >> >> In the function fanout_add add spin_lock to protect po-> running and po-> >> fanout, >> >> then whether it should be in the function fanout_release also add spin_lock >> protection ? > > po->bind_lock is held when registering and unregistering the > protocol hook. fanout_release does access po->running or > prot_hook.
whoops. does *not* access.
