From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753811AbdJaQpS (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:45:18 -0400 Received: from mail-lf0-f45.google.com ([209.85.215.45]:55958 "EHLO mail-lf0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753298AbdJaQpQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 31 Oct 2017 12:45:16 -0400 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABhQp+QrOQ3MRk3T/ASp4LiaG1B2PUDY2RvorkM1tobKYQ97/4carnLyNAJA9hsJ6B1lyBD2/DCNlA== Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2017 17:44:51 +0100 From: Stephen Hemminger To: Vitaly Kuznetsov Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, devel@linuxdriverproject.org, Haiyang Zhang , Stephen Hemminger , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 2/4] hv_netvsc: protect nvdev->extension with RCU Message-ID: <20171031174451.096978cd@shemminger-XPS-13-9360> In-Reply-To: <20171031134204.15287-3-vkuznets@redhat.com> References: <20171031134204.15287-1-vkuznets@redhat.com> <20171031134204.15287-3-vkuznets@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 31 Oct 2017 14:42:02 +0100 Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > @@ -2002,7 +2002,9 @@ static int netvsc_probe(struct hv_device *dev, > device_info.recv_sections = NETVSC_DEFAULT_RX; > device_info.recv_section_size = NETVSC_RECV_SECTION_SIZE; > > + rtnl_lock(); > nvdev = rndis_filter_device_add(dev, &device_info); > + rtnl_unlock(); rtnl is not necessary here. probe can not be bothered by other changes. > --- a/drivers/net/hyperv/rndis_filter.c > +++ b/drivers/net/hyperv/rndis_filter.c > @@ -402,20 +402,27 @@ int rndis_filter_receive(struct net_device *ndev, > void *data, u32 buflen) > { > struct net_device_context *net_device_ctx = netdev_priv(ndev); > - struct rndis_device *rndis_dev = net_dev->extension; > + struct rndis_device *rndis_dev; > struct rndis_message *rndis_msg = data; > + int ret = 0; > + > + rcu_read_lock_bh(); > + > + rndis_dev = rcu_dereference_bh(net_dev->extension); filter_receive is already called only from NAPI only and has RCU lock and soft irq disabled. This is not necessary. > - net_dev->extension = NULL; > + rcu_assign_pointer(net_dev->extension, NULL); > + > + synchronize_rcu(); rcu_assign_pointer with NULL is never a good idea. And synchronize_rcu is slow. Since net_device is already protected by RCU (for deletion) it should not be necessary. Thank you for trying to address these races. But it should be done carefully not by just slapping RCU everywhere.