[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Mon, 07 Jul 2014 10:57:36 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: Andrey Utkin <andrey.krieger.utkin@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
acme@...stprotocols.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH] appletalk: Set skb with destructor
On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 11:03 +0300, Andrey Utkin wrote:
> 2014-07-07 0:42 GMT+03:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>:
> >> /* Queue packet (standard) */
> >> + sock_hold(sock);
> >> + skb->destructor = atalk_skb_destructor;
> >> skb->sk = sock;
> >
> > This part is not needed : sock_queue_rcv_skb() already does the right
> > thing : It calls skb_set_owner_r(skb, sk);
> >
> > You should therefore remove the "skb->sk = sock;" line
>
> If it is so, i think this should be as another patch with its own reasoning.
>
No it is not.
Its illegal to set skb->sk to a socket without taking proper reference.
But it is useless to do this before calling sock_queue_rcv_skb(), as I
explained to you.
This is adding two extra atomic operations for nothing: skb_orphan() is
called from sock_queue_rcv_skb(), so it is kind of stupid to set a
destructor that _will_ be immediately called.
We do not do defensive programming, we try to do logical things, and
only logical things.
Please re-spin your patch, by integrating my feedback.
Thanks !
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists