[lkml]   [2011]   [Nov]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Linux 3.1-rc9
    On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Eric Dumazet <> 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

    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


     \ /
      Last update: 2011-11-02 19:13    [W:0.021 / U:5.104 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site