Re: [Patch net 2/2] ipmr,ip6mr: call list_del_rcu() when deleting mr table from list

[Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>]

On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 23:33, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM, Hannes Frederic Sowa
> <hannes@stressinduktion.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 21:21, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 21:07, Hannes Frederic Sowa wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015, at 20:05, Cong Wang wrote:
> >> > > Probably not a big deal, just for corretness.
> >> > >
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
> >> > > ---
> >> > >  net/ipv4/ipmr.c  | 2 +-
> >> > >  net/ipv6/ip6mr.c | 2 +-
> >> > >  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> > >
> >> > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> >> > > index d6fede8..68f67b8 100644
> >> > > --- a/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> >> > > +++ b/net/ipv4/ipmr.c
> >> > > @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ static void __net_exit ipmr_rules_exit(struct net
> >> > > *net)
> >> > >
> >> > >   rtnl_lock();
> >> > >   list_for_each_entry_safe(mrt, next, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list) {
> >> > > -               list_del(&mrt->list);
> >> > > +               list_del_rcu(&mrt->list);
> >> > >           ipmr_free_table(mrt);
> >> > >   }
> >> > >   rtnl_unlock();
> >> >
> >> > I really do wonder if we have the rcu locking correct in there:
> >> >
> >> > Looking into getsockopt/setsockopt operations, we might have socket
> >> > lock, but I cannot see where we lock rcu, so the ipmr_get_table call is
> >> > safe. Do you also see the problem?
> 
> I see only ipmr_rule_action() really has RCU read lock, I think the
> sockopt
> operations should take RCU read lock too, since it is supposed to be
> protected by rcu+rtnl rather than rcu+sock lock?

Exactly, it would be canonical, especially because of lockdep. I am not
sure yet about socket lock, but will review that tomorrow.

Maybe we also have to add __rcu annotations?

Bye,
Hannes