On 18/05/17 09:11, Greg KH wrote:
So backporting that one patch solves the issue here? Can you please
verify it, and let me know before I apply it?
thanks,
greg k-h
yes, I can do that.
On 17/05/17 09:19, Greg KH wrote:
Why is this a non-upstream patch? What commit in Linus's tree fixed
this? Why not just backport that?
thanks,
greg k-h
Agreed, I think it is sensible to backport 52bd2d62ce67 "net: better
skb->sender_cpu and skb->napi_id cohabitation" to 4.4, rather than
Similar to commit c29390c6dfee ("xps: must clear sender_cpu before
forwarding") the skb->sender_cpu needs to be cleared before forwarding
packets.
Fixes: 2bd82484bb4c ("xps: fix xps for stacked devices")
Signed-off-by: Anoob Soman
---
net/openvswitch/vport.c | 1 +
1 fi
Allocation of new_hash, inside xenvif_new_hash(), always happen
in softirq context, so use GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL for new
hash allocation.
Signed-off-by: Anoob Soman
---
drivers/net/xen-netback/hash.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/xen
On 15/02/17 21:02, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 20:25 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
+static struct packet_fanout *fanout_release(struct sock *sk)
{
struct packet_sock *po = pkt_sk(sk);
struct packet_fanout *f;
@@ -1728,17 +1736,17 @@ static void fanout_release(struct
o achieve this, I moved dev_{add,remove}_pack() out of fanout_{add,release} to
__fanout_{link,unlink}. So, call to {,__}unregister_prot_hook() will make sure
fanout->prot_hook is removed as well.
Fixes: 6664498280cf ("packet: call fanout_release, while UNREGISTERING a
netdev")
Report
o achieve this, I moved dev_{add,remove}_pack() out of fanout_{add,release} to
__fanout_{link,unlink}. So, call to {,__}unregister_prot_hook() will make sure
fanout->prot_hook is removed as well.
Fixes: 6664498280cf ("packet: call fanout_release, while UNREGISTERING a
netdev")
Reported-by
On 15/02/17 13:46, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Wed, 2017-02-15 at 11:07 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 13/02/17 14:50, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 13/02/17 14:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 13:28 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to call synchronize_net(), before ca
On 13/02/17 14:50, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 13/02/17 14:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 13:28 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to call synchronize_net(), before calling
fanout_release_data() and kfree(f).
The behavior, wrt synchronize_net, would be same as befor
On 13/02/17 14:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2017-02-13 at 13:28 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
Wouldn't it be easier to call synchronize_net(), before calling
fanout_release_data() and kfree(f).
The behavior, wrt synchronize_net, would be same as before and
fanout_release() will cl
On 10/02/17 13:57, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Fri, 2017-02-10 at 12:39 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
Commit 6664498280cf ("packet: call fanout_release, while UNREGISTERING a
netdev"), unfortunately, introduced the following issues.
1. calling mutex_lock(&fanout_mutex) (fanout_release(
o achieve this, I moved dev_{add,remove}_pack() out of fanout_{add,release} to
__fanout_{link,unlink}. So, call to {,__}unregister_prot_hook() will make sure
fanout->prot_hook is removed as well.
Signed-off-by: Anoob Soman
---
net/packet/af_packet.c | 7 ---
1 file changed, 4 insertions
On 02/02/17 15:53, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2017-02-02 at 14:42 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
I have tested both the approaches and LOCKDEP doesn't seem to catch any
problem with the test I was doing.
Yeah, I think I will cleanup this mess, we probably can remove rcu
locking in control
On 31/01/17 18:14, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 31/01/17 18:00, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 17:03 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 30/01/17 19:44, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 19:08 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 30/01/17 17:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 20
On 31/01/17 18:00, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Tue, 2017-01-31 at 17:03 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 30/01/17 19:44, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 19:08 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 30/01/17 17:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 20:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From
On 30/01/17 19:44, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Mon, 2017-01-30 at 19:08 +, Anoob Soman wrote:
On 30/01/17 17:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 20:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Anoob Soman
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:12:54 +0100
If a socket has FANOUT sockopt set, a new
On 30/01/17 17:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 20:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Anoob Soman
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:12:54 +0100
If a socket has FANOUT sockopt set, a new proto_hook is registered
as part of fanout_add(). When processing a NETDEV_UNREGISTER event in
On 30/01/17 17:26, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On Thu, 2016-10-06 at 20:50 -0400, David Miller wrote:
From: Anoob Soman
Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2016 15:12:54 +0100
If a socket has FANOUT sockopt set, a new proto_hook is registered
as part of fanout_add(). When processing a NETDEV_UNREGISTER event in
NETDEV_UNREGISTER, which removes prot_hook and removes fanout from the
fanout_list.
This fixes BUG_ON(!list_empty(&dev->ptype_specific)) in netdev_run_todo()
Signed-off-by: Anoob Soman
---
net/packet/af_packet.c | 1 +
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
diff --git a/net/packet/af_packet.c b/net
19 matches
Mail list logo
