On Tue, 12 May 2020 10:47:05 +0530 Madhuparna Bhowmik wrote: > > > #ifdef CONFIG_IP_MROUTE_MULTIPLE_TABLES > > > -#define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) \ > > > - list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \ > > > - lockdep_rtnl_is_held()) > > > +#define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) > > > \ > > > + list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \ > > > + lockdep_rtnl_is_held() || \ > > > + lockdep_is_held(&pernet_ops_rwsem)) > > > > This is a strange condition, IMHO. How can we be fine with either > > lock.. This is supposed to be the writer side lock, one can't have > > two writer side locks.. > > > > I think what is happening is this: > > > > ipmr_net_init() -> ipmr_rules_init() -> ipmr_new_table() > > > > ipmr_new_table() returns an existing table if there is one, but > > obviously none can exist at init. So a better fix would be: > > > > #define ipmr_for_each_table(mrt, net) > > \ > > list_for_each_entry_rcu(mrt, &net->ipv4.mr_tables, list, \ > > lockdep_rtnl_is_held() || \ > > list_empty(&net->ipv4.mr_tables)) > > > (adding Stephen) > > Hi Jakub, > > Thank you for your suggestion about this patch. > Here is a stack trace for ipmr.c: > > [...]
Thanks! > > Thoughts? > > Do you think a similar fix (the one you suggested) is also applicable > in the ip6mr case. Yes, looking at the code it seems ip6mr has the exact same flow for netns init.
