Linux-kernel mailing list archive 2000-47,: Re: [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ?

# Re: [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ?

Willy Tarreau (willy.lkml@free.fr)
Wed, 22 Nov 2000 16:36:19 +0100 (MET)

- Messages sorted by: [ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]
- Next message: Dr. Kelsey Hudson: "Re: mount /mnt/cdrom ok!but ls segmentation fault..."
- Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: Success with 2.4.0-test11(-final) [was: Re: Oops with 2.4.0-test10 during ripping an audio cd with cdda2wav]"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ?"

> No, it guarentees that only one process may be in the middle
> of modifying interface configuration state, the same and only
> guarentee it makes in 2.4.x as well.

ok, Dave. But the code in dev_ioctl() actually is :

rtnl_lock();
ret = dev_ifsioc(&ifr, cmd);
rtnl_unlock();

if only these lock/unlock guarantee this atomicity, then I can't
see why my A,B,C case could not work. If this is because the
kernel has been locked somewhere else, then why are the locks
still needed ? The author of rtnetlink.h has been very precautious
about the atomicity of these locks when CONFIG_RTNETLINK is set. I
don't understand why this could change in other cases. For this
reason, I don't know what to write in my code ...

Regards,
Willy
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

- Next message: Dr. Kelsey Hudson: "Re: mount /mnt/cdrom ok!but ls segmentation fault..."
- Previous message: Jens Axboe: "Re: Success with 2.4.0-test11(-final) [was: Re: Oops with 2.4.0-test10 during ripping an audio cd with cdda2wav]"
- In reply to: David S. Miller: "Re: [BUG] 2.2.1[78] : RTNETLINK lock not properly locking ?"