On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 10:04 PM David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com> wrote: > > On 3/19/19 9:19 AM, Paolo Abeni wrote: > > Hi, > > > > On Mon, 2019-03-18 at 14:30 -0700, Wei Wang wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 12:48 PM David Ahern <d...@cumulusnetworks.com> > >> wrote: > >>> On 3/18/19 12:36 PM, Xin Long wrote: > >>>> diff --git a/net/ipv6/route.c b/net/ipv6/route.c > >>>> index 4ef4bbd..754777d 100644 > >>>> --- a/net/ipv6/route.c > >>>> +++ b/net/ipv6/route.c > >>>> @@ -1040,13 +1040,17 @@ static struct rt6_info *ip6_create_rt_rcu(struct > >>>> fib6_info *rt) > >>>> struct rt6_info *nrt; > >>>> > >>>> if (!fib6_info_hold_safe(rt)) > >>>> - return NULL; > >>>> + goto fallback; > >>>> > >>>> nrt = ip6_dst_alloc(dev_net(dev), dev, flags); > >>>> - if (nrt) > >>>> + if (nrt) { > >>>> ip6_rt_copy_init(nrt, rt); > >>>> - else > >>>> + } else { > >>>> fib6_info_release(rt); > >>>> +fallback: > >>>> + nrt = dev_net(dev)->ipv6.ip6_null_entry; > >>>> + dst_hold(&nrt->dst); > >>>> + } > >>>> > >>>> return nrt; > >>>> } > >>> > >>> It seems appropriate for ip6_create_rt_rcu to always return an rt6_info > >>> given its use and v6 design. Since ip6_dst_alloc can also fail > >>> (e.g., > >>> exceed gc_thresh) the fallback case should apply to both. > >> > >> Agree. We should take care of ip6_dst_alloc() as well. > > > > AFAICS, if ip6_dst_alloc() fails/returns a NULL ptr, with this patch we > > do enter the fallback path (and return a valid rt6_info). I think your > > concerns are already addressed, what I'm missing ?!? > > > > you are correct. It should be made clearer from a readability perspective. I will post v2 by moving down 'fallback:':
{ ... if (!fib6_info_hold_safe(rt)) goto fallback; nrt = ip6_dst_alloc(dev_net(dev), dev, flags); if (!nrt) { fib6_info_release(rt); goto fallback; } ip6_rt_copy_init(nrt, rt); return nrt; fallback: nrt = dev_net(dev)->ipv6.ip6_null_entry; dst_hold(&nrt->dst); return nrt; }