[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:0.079 / U:1.644 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site