![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 12:40:17AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote: > > Anders, if you're feeling brave, from the top of my head, think about what > happens if somebody only reads the first, say, 10 bytes of /proc/net/tcp, will > we unlocking a not held lock at tcp_seq_stop, no? :-) Yes, I was just looking into the locking... But it's rather messy with locks between calls and goto's and I think I'd better get some sleep before saying anything for certain. Is there any reason holding the lock between listening_get_first() and the first call to listening_get_next(), but not between consecutive calls to listening_get_next()? Otherwise we could just always release the lock in listening_get_first. (All this applies to established_get_first/next too.) OOPS, I just realizes we might be talking about different locks :) I was talking about read_[un]lock_bh(&tp->syn_wait_lock); in listening_get_first/next What lock are you talking about? As far as I can see, in TCP_SEQ_STATE_OPENREQ tp->syn_wait_lock is always held and in TCP_SEQ_STATE_LISTENING the tcp_listen_lock and so on? -- Anders Gustafsson - andersg@0x63.nu - http://0x63.nu/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ | ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2005-03-22 12:31 [W:0.202 / U:0.620 seconds] ©2003-2008 Jasper Spaans | |||||||||||||