[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAN+4W8ijtoew8ouaN3i1NXtg0_G_HHmZyAtf5LsCBb6shCAx2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 16:25:05 +0100
From: Lorenz Bauer <lmb@...valent.com>
To: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com>
Cc: andrii@...nel.org, ast@...nel.org, bpf@...r.kernel.org,
daniel@...earbox.net, davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org,
edumazet@...gle.com, haoluo@...gle.com, hemanthmalla@...il.com,
joe@...d.net.nz, john.fastabend@...il.com, jolsa@...nel.org,
kpsingh@...nel.org, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, martin.lau@...ux.dev,
mykolal@...com, netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com,
sdf@...gle.com, shuah@...nel.org, song@...nel.org,
willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com, yhs@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next v2 3/6] net: remove duplicate reuseport_lookup functions
On Tue, Jun 13, 2023 at 7:57 PM Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...zon.com> wrote:
>
> else {
> result = sk;
> }
>
> The assignment to result below is buggy. Let's say SO_REUSEPROT group
> have TCP_CLOSE and TCP_ESTABLISHED sockets.
I'm not very familiar with SO_REUSEPORT, I assumed (incorrectly
probably) that such a group would only ever have TCP_CLOSE in UDP case
and TCP_LISTENING in TCP case. Can you explain how I could end up in
this situation?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists