[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47EBA8A7.4080503@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2008 10:01:11 -0400
From: Vlad Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@...com>
To: "Denis V. Lunev" <den@...nvz.org>
Cc: Netdev List <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
lksctp-developers@...ts.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: SCTP control socket question
Denis V. Lunev wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 09:15 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2008-03-27 at 08:48 -0400, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>>>> Denis V. Lunev wrote:
>>>>> Hello, Vlad!
>>>>>
>>>>> I have read SCTP sources and found that SCTP control socket
>>>>> (sctp_ctl_socket) remains hashed unlike similar staff in UDP/TCP etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Am I wrong, that it should not be hashed or not?
>>>> Why do you believe that the socket is hashed? That socket is only
>>>> allocated and referenced. It's should not be in any hash tables
>>>> since we hold a global reference on it.
>>> sctp_ctl_sock_init
>>> __sock_create
>>> inet(6)_create
>>> sk->sk_prot->hash(sk);
>>>
>>> For this purpose sk->sk_prot->unhash is explicitly called for ICMP/TCP
>>> etc cases.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Den
>>>
>> Ahhh... ;-)
>>
>> struct proto sctp_prot = {
>> ...
>> .hash = sctp_hash,
>> ...
>> }
>>
>> static void sctp_hash(struct sock *sk)
>> {
>> /* STUB */
>> }
>>
>>
>> SCTP currently does't do any hashing on the sockets. It hashes SCTP structures
>> that live under the socket.
>
> will you mind against this?
>
That's fine. My one concern is that someone may erroneously interpret that SCTP
sockets are derived from inet_connection_sock, but I can live with that.
-vlad
--
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