Hi Eric,
On 2/25/19 11:09 PM, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On 02/25/2019 01:27 PM, Dmitry Safonov wrote:
>> While it's possible to document that rtnl_unregister() requires
>> synchronize_net() afterwards - unlike rtnl_unregister_all(), I believe
>> the module exit is very much slow-path.
>
> rtnl_unregister_all() needs the sychronize_rcu() at this moment
> because of the kfree(tab), not because of the kfree_rcu(link, rcu);
I may be wrong here, but shouldn't we wait for grace period to elapse by
the reason that rtnl_msg_handlers are protected by RCU, not only by rtnl?
Like, without synchronize_net() in rtnl_unregister() - what prevents
module exit race to say, rtnetlink_rcv_msg()=>rtnl_get_link()?
>> --- a/net/core/rtnetlink.c
>> +++ b/net/core/rtnetlink.c
>> @@ -308,7 +308,9 @@ int rtnl_unregister(int protocol, int msgtype)
>> rcu_assign_pointer(tab[msgindex], NULL);
>> rtnl_unlock();
>>
>> - kfree_rcu(link, rcu);
>> + synchronize_net();
>> +
>> + kfree(link);
>
>
> I really do not see a difference here (other than this being much slower of
> course)
>
> If the caller needs rcu_barrier(), then add it in the caller ?
Well, sure - but it seems confusing that rtnl_unregister() will require
synchronize_rcu(), while rtnl_unregister_all() will not.
And I thought no one would care about another synchronize_rcu() in exit
path.
Thanks,
Dmitry
