From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:06:41 -0800 > 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 ? Targetting net-next for the assertion is fine. Did you get test results back yet? -- 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