On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 06:59:12PM +0200, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > We have already discussed this. It is not safe, certainly,
> > > and needs refcounting.
> > What I think is a bigger problem is the unsafe use of the spinlock:
> > nothing prevents a timer on the same CPU from bumping into the spinlock,
> > causing a deadlock.
> No dedalock, it causes reference to freed memory rather
> than deadlock.
We no longer have bh protection against timers, so a timer may run
while net_rx_action executes, even on the same CPU.
ipv6_reassembly has ip6_frag_lock, timer tries to aquire it on the same CPU
> > Hmm, probably the locks need to be split (list lock,
> > frag queue lock protected with del_timer_async + refcount) or maybe even
> Nothing but refcount on fq. It is very simple and convenient solution.
> Andi, I have already asked you: may I change IPv4/v6 defragmenters?
> I remember, you had some large patches for it.
Please fix it for v2.4. I'll put my changes in for 2.5.
This is like TV. I don't like TV.