| Message ID | 559BF613.7090904@virtuozzo.com |
|---|---|
| State | Changes Requested |
| Headers | show |
On 07.07.2015 20:13, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com> wrote: >> ipmr_free_table() calls unregister_netdevice_many() inside >> and changes net_todo_list protected by rtnl_lock > > Did you see any real bug? No, it was result of manual code review. > ipmr_free_table() is called in failure path, in this case there is no > device registered yet, so unregister should be just a nop? However may be it's better to mark this place for future anyway?
On 07.07.2015 20:30, Cong Wang wrote: > On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com> wrote: >> On 07.07.2015 20:13, Cong Wang wrote: >>> On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 8:53 AM, Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com> wrote: >>>> ipmr_free_table() calls unregister_netdevice_many() inside >>>> and changes net_todo_list protected by rtnl_lock >>> >>> Did you see any real bug? >> >> No, it was result of manual code review. >> >>> ipmr_free_table() is called in failure path, in this case there is no >>> device registered yet, so unregister should be just a nop? >> >> However may be it's better to mark this place for future anyway? > > Then add a comment there. ;) As you can see I'm not familiar with this code, so I would like to ask you to do it. :)
diff --git a/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c b/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c index 74ceb73..9108636 100644 --- a/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c +++ b/net/ipv6/ip6mr.c @@ -250,7 +250,9 @@ static int __net_init ip6mr_rules_init(struct net *net) return 0; err2: + rtnl_lock(); ip6mr_free_table(mrt); + rtnl_unlock(); err1: fib_rules_unregister(ops); return err;
ipmr_free_table() calls unregister_netdevice_many() inside and changes net_todo_list protected by rtnl_lock Signed-off-by: Vasily Averin <vvs@virtuozzo.com> --- net/ipv6/ip6mr.c | 2 ++ 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)