|
|
| [Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] |
On 10/20/09, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Cyrill Gorcunov a écrit : >> On 10/20/09, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Michal Ostrowski a écrit : >>>> Access of po->pppoe_dev is guarded by sk->sk_state & PPPOX_CONNECTED, >>>> and all use cases now rely on the socket lock. Because of this, the >>>> ref-count on the namespace held by the socket object suffices to hold >>>> the namespace in existence and so we don't need to ref-count the >>>> namespace in PPPoE. The flush_lock is gone. >>>> >>> Seems good ! >>> >>> But can we use lock_sock() in __pppoe_xmit() context ? >>> >> >> Eric, most probably i miss something, but how lock sock protect us >> from mtu changed via sysfs. This action calls change mtu notifier >> which doesn't care about sockets at all... > > This ultimately calls pppoe_flush_dev() and this function > takes care of taking appropriate sock_locks() on each sockets ? > This hold and lock socks but set pppoe_dev to null as well. I'll back later. And i need to reread the code. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ppp" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html