On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 04:42:25PM -0500, David Miller wrote:
> From: Craig Gallek <[email protected]>
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 16:38:32 -0500
>
> > On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 4:28 PM, David Miller <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> From: Craig Gallek <[email protected]>
> >> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 15:51:19 -0500
> >>
> >>> I was actually just looking at this as well (though a slightly
> >>> different stack). The issue is with: c6ff5268293e rhashtable: Fix
> >>> walker list corruption
> >>>
> >>> It changed the lock acquired in rhashtable_walk_init to use the new
> >>> spinlock, but the rht_dereference macro expects the mutex. I was
> >>> still trying to track down which repository this change came in
> >>> through, though...
> >>
> >> Both cam via my networking tree.
> > Simple fix is below. Though, I don't understand the history of the
> > multiple locks in this structure to be sure it's correct. I'll send
> > it as a formal patch. Please reject if it's not the right approach.
> >
> > diff --git a/lib/rhashtable.c b/lib/rhashtable.c
> > index 1c149e9..cc80870 100644
> > --- a/lib/rhashtable.c
> > +++ b/lib/rhashtable.c
> > @@ -516,7 +516,8 @@ int rhashtable_walk_init(struct rhashtable *ht,
> > struct rhashtable_iter *iter)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> >
> > spin_lock(&ht->lock);
> > - iter->walker->tbl = rht_dereference(ht->tbl, ht);
> > + iter->walker->tbl =
> > + rcu_dereference_protected(ht->tbl,
> > lockdep_is_held(&ht->lock));
> > list_add(&iter->walker->list, &iter->walker->tbl->walkers);
> > spin_unlock(&ht->lock);
>
> How can this be the "fix"? That's exactly what's in the tree.
I should have made clear, this is Linus' tree I'm hitting this on,
which matches what Craig posted.
Dave
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
