lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2002]   [Feb]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: Fw: memory corruption in tcp bind hash buckets on SMP?

--- kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
> So, its absence in bind hash must be guaranteed to the time of destruction.
> Look at this from another aspect: imagine you increment refcnt when
> adding to binding table.

> OK. So, what does guarantee that bucket
> will not remain in bind hash forever?
ease of finding the bug :). 'cause this would leave tw in the list withought
deleting it.. that would blow tw_bind_bucket_cache pool and that is so much
easier to find. would've been fixed in very early days.. probably in 2.3.0.1
:->. Still not argueing for double refcount. Reversing the removal order
would work too.. now we will have "if (!tw->tb) return;" instead.

> And "it will not" is equivalent
> to "refcnt is not useful".
>
> Anyway, I will think on this at night, I am not ready to tell how to
> do this right.
>
>
> > If you want to avoid timewait_kill() getting called twice altogether.
>
> Sorry, I did not understand what do you mean here. It can be called
> twice or three times or more. This is impossible to avoid without adding
> spinlock to timewait bucket.

I didn't think you would want to avoid multiple calls to tw_kill() either.

Raghu.
> Alexey


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
-
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 13:24    [W:0.076 / U:3.100 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site