--- /dev/null
+From c486640aa710ddd06c13a7f7162126e1552e8842 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
+From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
+Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2023 20:17:32 +0000
+Subject: ipv6: remove one read_lock()/read_unlock() pair in rt6_check_neigh()
+
+From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
+
+commit c486640aa710ddd06c13a7f7162126e1552e8842 upstream.
+
+rt6_check_neigh() uses read_lock() to protect n->nud_state reading.
+
+This seems overkill and causes false sharing.
+
+Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
+Reviewed-by: David Ahern <dsahern@kernel.org>
+Reviewed-by: Martin KaFai Lau <martin.lau@kernel.org>
+Signed-off-by: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
+Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
+---
+ net/ipv6/route.c | 8 ++++----
+ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
+
+--- a/net/ipv6/route.c
++++ b/net/ipv6/route.c
+@@ -690,16 +690,16 @@ static enum rt6_nud_state rt6_check_neig
+ neigh = __ipv6_neigh_lookup_noref(fib6_nh->fib_nh_dev,
+ &fib6_nh->fib_nh_gw6);
+ if (neigh) {
+- read_lock(&neigh->lock);
+- if (neigh->nud_state & NUD_VALID)
++ u8 nud_state = READ_ONCE(neigh->nud_state);
++
++ if (nud_state & NUD_VALID)
+ ret = RT6_NUD_SUCCEED;
+ #ifdef CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF
+- else if (!(neigh->nud_state & NUD_FAILED))
++ else if (!(nud_state & NUD_FAILED))
+ ret = RT6_NUD_SUCCEED;
+ else
+ ret = RT6_NUD_FAIL_PROBE;
+ #endif
+- read_unlock(&neigh->lock);
+ } else {
+ ret = IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_IPV6_ROUTER_PREF) ?
+ RT6_NUD_SUCCEED : RT6_NUD_FAIL_DO_RR;