netdev
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] arp_queue: serializing unlink + kfree_skb

To: Herbert Xu <herbert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] arp_queue: serializing unlink + kfree_skb
From: Anton Blanchard <anton@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2005 01:27:05 +1100
Cc: Olaf Kirch <okir@xxxxxxx>, netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <E1CvZo6-0001Bz-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
References: <20050131102920.GC4170@suse.de> <E1CvZo6-0001Bz-00@gondolin.me.apana.org.au>
Sender: netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
 
Hi,

> For example, in this particular case, a more sinister (but probably
> impossible for sk_buff objects) problem would be for the list removal
> itself to be delayed until after the the kfree_skb.  This could
> potentially mean that we're reading/writing memory that's already
> been freed.
> 
> Perhaps we should always add a barrier to such operations.  So
> kfree_skb would become
> 
>       if (atomic_read(&skb->users) != 1) {
>               smp_mb__before_atomic_dec();
>               if (!atomic_dec_and_test(&skb->users))
>                       return;
>       }
>       __kfree_skb(skb);

Architectures should guarantee that any of the atomics and bitops that
return values order in both directions. So you dont need the
smp_mb__before_atomic_dec here.

It is, however, required on the atomics and bitops that dont return
values. Its difficult stuff, everyone gets it wrong and Andrew keeps
hassling me to write up a document explaining it.

Anton

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>