Messages in this thread | | | From | Linus Torvalds <> | Date | Wed, 2 Nov 2011 11:10:27 -0700 | Subject | Re: Linux 3.1-rc9 |
| |
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > > Yes, but only when tproxy is used, and in some obscure error > conditions... Probably nobody ever hit them or complained.
Yes, I'm not disputing that. However, it does show how incredibly fragile that code is.
May I suggest renaming those "clone_sk()" kinds of functions "clone_sk_lock()" or something? So that you *see* that it's locked as it is cloned. That might have made the bug not happen in the first place..
Of course, maybe it's obvious to most net people - just not me looking at the code - that the new socket ended up being locked at allocation. But considering the bug happened twice, that "obvious" part is clearly debatable..
Linus
| |