Re: [Patch net] sched, cls: check if we could overwrite actions when changing a filter

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 4:10 AM, Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 04/18/14 13:18, Cong Wang wrote:
>> IOW, what's wrong with changing if (icmp) { A } to if (icmp) { B } ?
>> where A and B could be any complex combination of actions.
>> RTNL lock guarantees this is transactional.
>>
>
> RTNL is one dimension. The other is the datapath processing.
> You need to make sure that packets still flow correctly during the
> change over.

Sure, since we grab tcf_tree_lock() before changing actions in
tcf_exts_change(), I think this is guaranteed too.


>
>> I never mean to only add or remove one of them inside, although
>> my specific case is just for appending, my patch should allow to
>> overwrite all the actions together.
>>
>
> Well - then go nuts and put out a patch.
> Replace _all or none_ is a reasonable approach.
>
>

Great! We both agree on this.

Looking at the current code, we first initialize a list of actions
and then replace them as a whole by splicing the lists with
tcf_tree_lock held, so this is already done. IOW, this patch
is enough.

Or am I missing anything?

Thanks!
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Discussion]     [TCP Instrumentation]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Host AP]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Bluetooth Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL Networking]     [Linux Networking Users]     [Linux Coverity]     [VLAN]     [Git]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Assembly]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]