On Mon, 28 May 2018 17:44:16 +0200 Petr Machata <pe...@mellanox.com> wrote:
> Callers of br_fdb_find() need to hold the hash lock, which > br_fdb_find_port() doesn't do. Add the missing lock/unlock > pair. > > Signed-off-by: Petr Machata <pe...@mellanox.com> > --- > net/bridge/br_fdb.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c > index b19e310..3f5691a 100644 > --- a/net/bridge/br_fdb.c > +++ b/net/bridge/br_fdb.c > @@ -135,9 +135,11 @@ struct net_device *br_fdb_find_port(const struct > net_device *br_dev, > return NULL; > > br = netdev_priv(br_dev); > + spin_lock_bh(&br->hash_lock); > f = br_fdb_find(br, addr, vid); > if (f && f->dst) > dev = f->dst->dev; > + spin_unlock_bh(&br->hash_lock); > > return dev; > } Sigh. when did br_fdb_find start needing hash_lock? What is the point of RCU then?
