Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From:   Qian Cai <cai@lca.pw>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skbuff: fix a data race in skb_queue_len()
Date:   Mon, 3 Feb 2020 15:19:13 -0500
Message-Id: <D743FB35-3736-45E9-9DE1-8E81929D67C1@lca.pw>
References: <648d6673-bbd8-6634-0174-f9b77194ecfd@gmail.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, kuba@kernel.org, elver@google.com,
        netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <648d6673-bbd8-6634-0174-f9b77194ecfd@gmail.com>
To:     Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk


> On Feb 3, 2020, at 2:42 PM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote:
>=20
> We do not want to add READ_ONCE() for all uses of skb_queue_len()
>=20
> This could hide some real bugs, and could generate slightly less
> efficient code in the cases we have the lock held.

Good point. I should have thought about that. How about introducing 2 new he=
lpers.

skb_queue_len_once()
unix_recvq_full_once()

which will have a READ_ONCE() there, and then unix_dgram_sendmsg() could use=
 that instead?=