I agree with Ethan, in the worst case, xport could be destroyed when dereferenced.
I can add reference counter to dpif. Should I do that? On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Ethan Jackson <et...@nicira.com> wrote: > Technically I don't think it is because the dpif could be destroyed as > soon as the xlate_rwlock is released. In practice this seems pretty > unlikely. If we wanted to do that we'd have to ref count the dpif, > which may not be a bad idea anyway. > > Ethan > > On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 3:45 PM, Ben Pfaff <b...@nicira.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 03:41:17PM -0700, Ethan Jackson wrote: > >> > xlate_send_packet() locks xlate_rwlock before it looks up the xport, > >> > but at the end it unlocks xlate_rwlock before it dereferences > >> > xport->xbridge->dpif. Is the latter dereference safe, that is, does > >> > anything guarantee that 'xport' and 'xbridge' aren't destroyed? > >> > >> No that's definitely not safe. Should be changed. > > > > Is it sufficient to do dpif = xport->xbridge->dpif inside the lock and > > then use 'dpif' afterward? >
_______________________________________________ dev mailing list dev@openvswitch.org http://openvswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/dev
