[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH net -v2] [BUGFIX] bonding: use flush_delayed_work_sync in bond_close
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:09 AM, Jay Vosburgh <> wrote:
> Stephen Hemminger <> wrote:
>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 11:01:02 -0700
>>Jay Vosburgh <> wrote:
>>> Mitsuo Hayasaka <> wrote:
>>> >The bond_close() calls cancel_delayed_work() to cancel delayed works.
>>> >It, however, cannot cancel works that were already queued in workqueue.
>>> >The bond_open() initializes work->data, and proccess_one_work() refers
>>> >get_work_cwq(work)->wq->flags. The get_work_cwq() returns NULL when
>>> >work->data has been initialized. Thus, a panic occurs.
>>> >
>>> >This patch uses flush_delayed_work_sync() instead of cancel_delayed_work()
>>> >in bond_close(). It cancels delayed timer and waits for work to finish
>>> >execution. So, it can avoid the null pointer dereference due to the
>>> >parallel executions of proccess_one_work() and initializing proccess
>>> >of bond_open().
>>>      I'm setting up to test this.  I have a dim recollection that we
>>> tried this some years ago, and there was a different deadlock that
>>> manifested through the flush path.  Perhaps changes since then have
>>> removed that problem.
>>>      -J
>>Won't this deadlock on RTNL.  The problem is that:
>>   CPU0                            CPU1
>>  rtnl_lock
>>      bond_close
>>                                 delayed_work
>>                                   mii_work
>>                                     read_lock(bond->lock);
>>                                     read_unlock(bond->lock);
>>                                     rtnl_lock... waiting for CPU0
>>      flush_delayed_work_sync
>>          waiting for delayed_work to finish...
>        Yah, that was it.  We discussed this a couple of years ago in
> regards to a similar patch:
>        The short version is that we could rework the rtnl_lock inside
> the montiors to be conditional and retry on failure (where "retry" means
> "reschedule the work and try again later," not "spin retrying on rtnl").
> That should permit the use of flush or cancel to terminate the work
> items.

Yes? Even if we use rtnl_trylock(), doesn't flush_delayed_work_sync()
still queue the pending delayed work and wait for it to be finished?

Maybe I am too blind, why do we need rtnl_lock for cancel_delayed_work()
inside bond_close()?

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-21 07:47    [W:0.054 / U:1.360 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site