* [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Free the port memory directly with kfree instead of kfree_rcu
@ 2016-12-06 4:29 fgao
2016-12-06 6:25 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: fgao @ 2016-12-06 4:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: davem, maheshb, edumazet, netdev, gfree.wind; +Cc: Gao Feng
From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
There is no one which may reference the "port" in ipvlan_port_create
when netdev_rx_handler_register failed. So it could free it directly
with kfree instead of kfree_rcu.
Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
---
drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
index c6aa667..1a601151 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int ipvlan_port_create(struct net_device *dev)
return 0;
err:
- kfree_rcu(port, rcu);
+ kfree(port);
return err;
}
--
1.9.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Free the port memory directly with kfree instead of kfree_rcu
2016-12-06 4:29 [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Free the port memory directly with kfree instead of kfree_rcu fgao
@ 2016-12-06 6:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-06 6:31 ` Gao Feng
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2016-12-06 6:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: fgao; +Cc: davem, maheshb, edumazet, netdev, gfree.wind
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 12:29 +0800, fgao@ikuai8.com wrote:
> From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>
> There is no one which may reference the "port" in ipvlan_port_create
> when netdev_rx_handler_register failed. So it could free it directly
> with kfree instead of kfree_rcu.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
> ---
> drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> index c6aa667..1a601151 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int ipvlan_port_create(struct net_device *dev)
> return 0;
>
> err:
> - kfree_rcu(port, rcu);
> + kfree(port);
> return err;
> }
>
This looks a partial patch.
If you really care, why don't you also replace the kfree_rcu() in
ipvlan_port_destroy() ?
diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h
index 05a62d2216c54651f6158c35d446d2e395b38dc3..031093e1c25f55244e6bdfde4ebeb65c0f2f10c1 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h
+++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h
@@ -97,7 +97,6 @@ struct ipvl_port {
struct work_struct wq;
struct sk_buff_head backlog;
int count;
- struct rcu_head rcu;
};
static inline struct ipvl_port *ipvlan_port_get_rcu(const struct net_device *d)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
index 5430460167b5e8945d29a3febdd324461bf5af5c..ffe8994e64fc1791ef07d80ad2340bc82d541bba 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int ipvlan_port_create(struct net_device *dev)
return 0;
err:
- kfree_rcu(port, rcu);
+ kfree(port);
return err;
}
@@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void ipvlan_port_destroy(struct net_device *dev)
netdev_rx_handler_unregister(dev);
cancel_work_sync(&port->wq);
__skb_queue_purge(&port->backlog);
- kfree_rcu(port, rcu);
+ kfree(port);
}
#define IPVLAN_FEATURES \
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Free the port memory directly with kfree instead of kfree_rcu
2016-12-06 6:25 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2016-12-06 6:31 ` Gao Feng
2016-12-06 6:53 ` Eric Dumazet
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao Feng @ 2016-12-06 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: David S. Miller, Mahesh Bandewar, Eric Dumazet,
Linux Kernel Network Developers
Hi Eric,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 12:29 +0800, fgao@ikuai8.com wrote:
>> From: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>>
>> There is no one which may reference the "port" in ipvlan_port_create
>> when netdev_rx_handler_register failed. So it could free it directly
>> with kfree instead of kfree_rcu.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gao Feng <fgao@ikuai8.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
>> index c6aa667..1a601151 100644
>> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
>> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
>> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int ipvlan_port_create(struct net_device *dev)
>> return 0;
>>
>> err:
>> - kfree_rcu(port, rcu);
>> + kfree(port);
>> return err;
>> }
>>
>
> This looks a partial patch.
>
> If you really care, why don't you also replace the kfree_rcu() in
> ipvlan_port_destroy() ?
Because I don't fully hold the ipvlan codes now, I am afraid of that
there is someone which may get the port address when
ipvlan_port_destroy. So the original ipvlan_port_destroy uses the
kfree_rcu to avoid it.
I am sure there is unnecessary to use kfree in ipvlan_port_create.
Regards
Feng
>
>
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h
> index 05a62d2216c54651f6158c35d446d2e395b38dc3..031093e1c25f55244e6bdfde4ebeb65c0f2f10c1 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h
> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan.h
> @@ -97,7 +97,6 @@ struct ipvl_port {
> struct work_struct wq;
> struct sk_buff_head backlog;
> int count;
> - struct rcu_head rcu;
> };
>
> static inline struct ipvl_port *ipvlan_port_get_rcu(const struct net_device *d)
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> index 5430460167b5e8945d29a3febdd324461bf5af5c..ffe8994e64fc1791ef07d80ad2340bc82d541bba 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ipvlan/ipvlan_main.c
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ static int ipvlan_port_create(struct net_device *dev)
> return 0;
>
> err:
> - kfree_rcu(port, rcu);
> + kfree(port);
> return err;
> }
>
> @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ static void ipvlan_port_destroy(struct net_device *dev)
> netdev_rx_handler_unregister(dev);
> cancel_work_sync(&port->wq);
> __skb_queue_purge(&port->backlog);
> - kfree_rcu(port, rcu);
> + kfree(port);
> }
>
> #define IPVLAN_FEATURES \
>
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Free the port memory directly with kfree instead of kfree_rcu
2016-12-06 6:31 ` Gao Feng
@ 2016-12-06 6:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-06 7:00 ` Gao Feng
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Eric Dumazet @ 2016-12-06 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Gao Feng
Cc: David S. Miller, Mahesh Bandewar, Eric Dumazet,
Linux Kernel Network Developers
On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 14:31 +0800, Gao Feng wrote:
> Because I don't fully hold the ipvlan codes now, I am afraid of that
> there is someone which may get the port address when
> ipvlan_port_destroy. So the original ipvlan_port_destroy uses the
> kfree_rcu to avoid it.
>
> I am sure there is unnecessary to use kfree in ipvlan_port_create.
And I am pretty sure it is unnecessary to use kfree_rcu() in
ipvlan_port_destroy() as well.
I highly suggest you spend time on learning why.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Free the port memory directly with kfree instead of kfree_rcu
2016-12-06 6:53 ` Eric Dumazet
@ 2016-12-06 7:00 ` Gao Feng
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Gao Feng @ 2016-12-06 7:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eric Dumazet
Cc: David S. Miller, Mahesh Bandewar, Eric Dumazet,
Linux Kernel Network Developers
Hi Eric,
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 2:53 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-12-06 at 14:31 +0800, Gao Feng wrote:
>
>> Because I don't fully hold the ipvlan codes now, I am afraid of that
>> there is someone which may get the port address when
>> ipvlan_port_destroy. So the original ipvlan_port_destroy uses the
>> kfree_rcu to avoid it.
>>
>> I am sure there is unnecessary to use kfree in ipvlan_port_create.
>
> And I am pretty sure it is unnecessary to use kfree_rcu() in
> ipvlan_port_destroy() as well.
>
> I highly suggest you spend time on learning why.
>
>
>
Thanks your suggestion.
I will send v2 patch after get the reason by myself.
Begards
Feng
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-12-06 7:00 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-12-06 4:29 [PATCH net-next 1/1] driver: ipvlan: Free the port memory directly with kfree instead of kfree_rcu fgao
2016-12-06 6:25 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-06 6:31 ` Gao Feng
2016-12-06 6:53 ` Eric Dumazet
2016-12-06 7:00 ` Gao Feng
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.