Re: [PATCH] tcp: tcp_release_cb() should release socket ownership

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Discussion]     [TCP Instrumentation]     [Ethernet Bridging]     [Linux Wireless Networking]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Host AP]     [Linux WPAN Networking]     [Linux Bluetooth Networking]     [Linux ATH6KL Networking]     [Linux Networking Users]     [Linux Coverity]     [VLAN]     [Git]     [IETF Annouce]     [Linux Assembly]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Information]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux Kernel]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Virtualization]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]