On Thu, 8 Oct 2020 14:31:56 +0700 Hoang Huu Le wrote:
> diff --git a/net/tipc/name_distr.c b/net/tipc/name_distr.c
> index 2f9c148f17e2..fe4edce459ad 100644
> --- a/net/tipc/name_distr.c
> +++ b/net/tipc/name_distr.c
> @@ -327,8 +327,13 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct
> sk_buff_head *namedq,
> struct tipc_msg *hdr;
> u16 seqno;
>
> + spin_lock_bh(&namedq->lock);
> skb_queue_walk_safe(namedq, skb, tmp) {
> - skb_linearize(skb);
> + if (unlikely(skb_linearize(skb))) {
> + __skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
> + kfree_skb(skb);
> + continue;
> + }
> hdr = buf_msg(skb);
> seqno = msg_named_seqno(hdr);
> if (msg_is_last_bulk(hdr)) {
> @@ -338,12 +343,14 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct
> sk_buff_head *namedq,
>
> if (msg_is_bulk(hdr) || msg_is_legacy(hdr)) {
> __skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
> return skb;
> }
>
> if (*open && (*rcv_nxt == seqno)) {
> (*rcv_nxt)++;
> __skb_unlink(skb, namedq);
> + spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
> return skb;
> }
>
> @@ -353,6 +360,7 @@ static struct sk_buff *tipc_named_dequeue(struct
> sk_buff_head *namedq,
> continue;
> }
> }
> + spin_unlock_bh(&namedq->lock);
> return NULL;
> }
>
> diff --git a/net/tipc/node.c b/net/tipc/node.c
> index cf4b239fc569..d269ebe382e1 100644
> --- a/net/tipc/node.c
> +++ b/net/tipc/node.c
> @@ -1496,7 +1496,7 @@ static void node_lost_contact(struct tipc_node *n,
>
> /* Clean up broadcast state */
> tipc_bcast_remove_peer(n->net, n->bc_entry.link);
> - __skb_queue_purge(&n->bc_entry.namedq);
> + skb_queue_purge(&n->bc_entry.namedq);
Patch looks fine, but I'm not sure why not hold
spin_unlock_bh(&tn->nametbl_lock) here instead?
Seems like node_lost_contact() should be relatively rare,
so adding another lock to tipc_named_dequeue() is not the
right trade off.
> /* Abort any ongoing link failover */
> for (i = 0; i < MAX_BEARERS; i++) {
