> Quoting Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Subject: Re: dst_ifdown breaks infiniband? > > Hello! > > > If a device driver sets neigh_destructor in neigh_params, this could > > get called after the device has been unregistered and the driver module > > removed. > > It is the same problem: if dst->neighbour holds neighbour, it should > not hold device. parms->dev is not supposed to be used after > neigh_parms_release(). F.e. set parms->dev to NULL to catch bad references.
Yes. I fixed that - simply checking that neighbour->dev is a loopback device is sufficient to detect the fact that the device is being unregistered. > Do you search for a way to find real inifiniband device in > ipoib_neigh_destructor()? No, not anymore. > I guess you will not be able. I agree it's not possible. > The problem is logical: if destructor needs device, neighbour entry > _somehow_ have to hold reference to the device (via neigh->dev, neigh->parms, > whatever). Hence, if we hold neighbour entry, unregister cannot be completed. > Therefore, destructor cannot refer to device. Q.E.D. :-) > > Seems, releasing dst->neighbour is inevitable. infiniband sets parm->neigh_destructor, and I search for a way to prevent this destructor from being called after the module has been unloaded. Ideas? -- MST - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
