On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:42 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:38 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > Take a look at the patches 2-4 in the current series where I convert
> > the callers.
> >
> > (Though, I'd rename xxx_dereference to xxx_rcu_dereference for clarity we
>
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:16 PM Alexei Starovoitov
wrote:
>
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:56:36PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 05/14, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 5/14/19 7:27 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > >
> > > > what about activate_effective_progs() ?
> > > > I wouldn
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 8:38 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> Take a look at the patches 2-4 in the current series where I convert
> the callers.
>
> (Though, I'd rename xxx_dereference to xxx_rcu_dereference for clarity we
> get to a v2).
please make a fresh repost _after_ bpf-next opens.
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 07:56:36PM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 05/14, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 5/14/19 7:27 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> >
> > > what about activate_effective_progs() ?
> > > I wouldn't want to lose the annotation there.
> > > but then array_free will lose
On 05/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:53 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > Existing __rcu annotations don't add anything to the safety.
>
> what do you mean?
> BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY derefs these pointers under rcu.
And I'm not removing them from the struct definitions,
On 05/14, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 5/14/19 7:27 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
>
> > what about activate_effective_progs() ?
> > I wouldn't want to lose the annotation there.
> > but then array_free will lose it?
It would not have have it because the input is the result of
bpf_prog_array_allo
On 5/14/19 7:27 PM, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> what about activate_effective_progs() ?
> I wouldn't want to lose the annotation there.
> but then array_free will lose it?
> in some cases it's called without mutex in a destruction path.
> also how do you propose to solve different 'mtx' in
> lo
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 7:11 PM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 05/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:53 AM Stanislav Fomichev
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Existing __rcu annotations don't add anything to the safety.
> >
> > what do you mean?
> > BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY derefs th
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:53 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> Existing __rcu annotations don't add anything to the safety.
what do you mean?
BPF_PROG_RUN_ARRAY derefs these pointers under rcu.
On 05/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:30:02AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 05/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Stanislav Fomichev
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 05/08, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > > On 05/08, Alexei S
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:30:02AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 05/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Stanislav Fomichev
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > On 05/08, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > On 05/08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 a
On 05/14, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> >
> > On 05/08, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > On 05/08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:18:41AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > > Right now we are not using rc
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 11:57 AM Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
>
> On 05/08, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > On 05/08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:18:41AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > > Right now we are not using rcu api correctly: we pass __rcu pointers
> > > >
On 05/08, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> On 05/08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:18:41AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > > Right now we are not using rcu api correctly: we pass __rcu pointers
> > > to bpf_prog_array_xyz routines but don't use rcu_dereference on them
> >
On 05/08, Alexei Starovoitov wrote:
> On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:18:41AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > Right now we are not using rcu api correctly: we pass __rcu pointers
> > to bpf_prog_array_xyz routines but don't use rcu_dereference on them
> > (see bpf_prog_array_delete_safe and bpf_pro
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:18:41AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> Right now we are not using rcu api correctly: we pass __rcu pointers
> to bpf_prog_array_xyz routines but don't use rcu_dereference on them
> (see bpf_prog_array_delete_safe and bpf_prog_array_copy in particular).
> Instead of sp
Right now we are not using rcu api correctly: we pass __rcu pointers
to bpf_prog_array_xyz routines but don't use rcu_dereference on them
(see bpf_prog_array_delete_safe and bpf_prog_array_copy in particular).
Instead of sprinkling rcu_dereferences, let's just get rid of those
__rcu annotations and
17 matches
Mail list logo
