On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 12:42:41PM +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote:
quoted text
> Le lundi 16 ao??t 2010 ?? 09:53 +0000, Jarek Poplawski a écrit :
> > Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > > Le dimanche 15 aou^t 2010 a` 12:55 +0200, Eric Dumazet a écrit :
> > ...
> > > [PATCH] netfilter: {ip,ip6,arp}_tables: avoid lockdep false positive
> > > 
> > > After commit 24b36f019 (netfilter: {ip,ip6,arp}_tables: dont block
> > > bottom half more than necessary), lockdep can raise a warning
> > > because we attempt to lock a spinlock with BH enabled, while
> > > the same lock is usually locked by another cpu in a softirq context.
> > 
> > Btw, could you remind us how get_counters() are serialized (I guess
> > you can't have them on 2 cpus at the same time)?
> > 
> 
> get_counters() is serialized by the xt_find_table_lock() done from
> get_entries(). This use a mutex to guard against changes.
> 
> You are right that if we ever allow two concurrent "iptables -nvL"
> operations in the future (using a read lock on a rwlock instead of a
> mutex), then we must disable BH even for summing data from the other
> cpus.

OK, thanks for the explanation,

Jarek P.
--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/