On Fri, 23 Mar 2018 15:57:04 -0700
Joel Fernandes <joe...@google.com> wrote:
> > diff --git a/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c b/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
> > index 194a7483bb93..857b494bee29 100644
> > --- a/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
> > +++ b/net/l2tp/l2tp_core.c
> > @@ -1677,6 +1677,8 @@ void __l2tp_session_unhash(struct l2tp_session
> > *session)
> > {
> > struct l2tp_tunnel *tunnel = session->tunnel;
> >
> > + might_sleep();
> > +
> > /* Remove the session from core hashes */
> > if (tunnel) {
> > /* Remove from the per-tunnel hash */
>
> Thanks Thomas and Steven, also shouldn't this code be calling
> synchronize_rcu_bh instead of synchronize_rcu, to complement the
> rcu_read_lock_bh? In which situations would you call one versus the
> other?
Probably, as the comment above rcu_read_lock_bh is:
* rcu_read_lock_bh() - mark the beginning of an RCU-bh critical section
*
* This is equivalent of rcu_read_lock(), but to be used when updates
* are being done using call_rcu_bh() or synchronize_rcu_bh(). Since
* both call_rcu_bh() and synchronize_rcu_bh() consider completion of a
* softirq handler to be a quiescent state, a process in RCU read-side
* critical section must be protected by disabling softirqs.
It appears that the reason to use rcu_read_lock_bh() is if you are
calling synchronize_rcu_bh(). Otherwise, one could just be using
straight rcu_read_lock().
-- Steve
