Hi,
Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com> writes:
> taprio_init may fail earlier than this line:
>
> list_add(&q->taprio_list, &taprio_list);
>
> i.e. due to the net device not being multi queue.
Good catch.
>
> Attempting to remove q from the global taprio_list when it is not part
> of it will result in a kernel panic.
>
> Fix it by iterating through the list and removing it only if found.
>
> Signed-off-by: Vladimir Oltean <olte...@gmail.com>
> ---
> net/sched/sch_taprio.c | 9 +++++++--
> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> index 540bde009ea5..f1eea8c68011 100644
> --- a/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> +++ b/net/sched/sch_taprio.c
> @@ -1199,12 +1199,17 @@ static int taprio_change(struct Qdisc *sch, struct
> nlattr *opt,
>
> static void taprio_destroy(struct Qdisc *sch)
> {
> - struct taprio_sched *q = qdisc_priv(sch);
> + struct taprio_sched *p, *q = qdisc_priv(sch);
> struct net_device *dev = qdisc_dev(sch);
> + struct list_head *pos, *tmp;
> unsigned int i;
>
> spin_lock(&taprio_list_lock);
> - list_del(&q->taprio_list);
> + list_for_each_safe(pos, tmp, &taprio_list) {
> + p = list_entry(pos, struct taprio_sched, taprio_list);
> + if (p == q)
> + list_del(&q->taprio_list);
> + }
Personally, I would do things differently, I am thinking: adding the
taprio instance earlier to the list in taprio_init(), and keeping
taprio_destroy() the way it is now. But take this more as a suggestion
:-)
Cheers,
--
Vinicius
