On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 20:59 -0500, David Miller wrote: > It really means that sk_lock.owned cannot ever be accessed without the > sk_lock spinlock held. > > Most of this is easy to hand audit, except sock_owned_by_user() which > has call sites everywhere. > > Consider adding a locking assertion to it. We can do that, but would it be a stable candidate ? What about I send a followup for net-next ? Thanks -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html