lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  linux-cve-announce  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:42:22 -0400
From:	"J. Bruce Fields" <>
To:	Neil Brown <>
Cc:	Wolfgang Walter <>,,,,
Subject: Re: [patch] sunrpc: make closing of old temporary sockets work
	(was: problems with lockd in

On Wed, Sep 12, 2007 at 04:14:06PM +0200, Neil Brown wrote:
> So it is in 2.6.21 and later and should probably go to .stable for .21
> and .22.
> Bruce:  for you :-)

OK, thanks!  But, (as is alas often the case) I'm still confused:

>  		if (!test_and_set_bit(SK_OLD, &svsk->sk_flags))
>  			continue;
> -		if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
> +		if (atomic_read(&svsk->sk_inuse) > 1
> +		    || test_bit(SK_BUSY, &svsk->sk_flags))
>  			continue;
>  		atomic_inc(&svsk->sk_inuse);
>  		list_move(le, &to_be_aged);

What is it that ensures svsk->sk_inuse isn't incremented or SK_BUSY set
after that test?  Not all the code that does either of those is under
the same serv->sv_lock lock that this code is.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists