Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 14:29:40 -0700 From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@freebsd.org> To: "Alexander V. Chernikov" <melifaro@freebsd.org> Cc: svn-src-head@freebsd.org, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r233937 - in head/sys: kern net security/mac Message-ID: <CAJ-Vmo=dLhW8GjBMB-snHcCd1e3aaoqasBQkmqLRHwSQt5B5Xg@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <4F8BBD4E.1040106@FreeBSD.org> References: <201204060653.q366rwLa096182@svn.freebsd.org> <4F7E9413.20602@FreeBSD.org> <CAJ-VmonJ%2BZXrwgrwc3eoDvf6oMmip9zf2TFLpvjqahHgdcZdxw@mail.gmail.com> <4F8BBD4E.1040106@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 15 April 2012 23:33, Alexander V. Chernikov <melifaro@freebsd.org> wrote:
> On 16.04.2012 01:17, Adrian Chadd wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> This has broken (at least) net80211 and bpf, with LOR:
>
> Yes, it is. Please try the attached patch
Hi,
This seems like a very, very complicated diff.
* You've removed BPF_LOCK_ASSERT() inside bpf_detachd_locked() - why'd
you do that?
* You removed a comment ("We're already protected by the global lock")
which is still relevant/valid
* There are lots of modifications to the read/write locks here - I'm
not sure whether they're at all relevant to my immediate problem and
may belong in separate commits
Is there a document somewhere which describes what the "new" style BPF
locking should be?
I "just" added BPF_LOCK() / BPF_UNLOCK() around all the calls to
bpf_detachd() which weren't locked (there were a few.)
One final question - should the BPF global lock be recursive?
thanks,
Adrian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAJ-Vmo=dLhW8GjBMB-snHcCd1e3aaoqasBQkmqLRHwSQt5B5Xg>