[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20101129123909.GA9286@ff.dom.local>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:39:09 +0000
From: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@...il.com>
To: Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@...emap.net>
Cc: Nagendra Tomar <tomer_iisc@...oo.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
davem@...emloft.net, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly
increment bsockets and num_owners
On 2010-11-29 00:00, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote:
> Hi.
>
> On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 04:26:27PM -0800, Nagendra Tomar (tomer_iisc@...oo.com) wrote:
>> inet sockets corresponding to passive connections are added to the bind hash
>> using ___inet_inherit_port(). These sockets are later removed from the bind
>> hash using __inet_put_port(). These two functions are not exactly symmetrical.
>> __inet_put_port() decrements hashinfo->bsockets and tb->num_owners, whereas
>> ___inet_inherit_port() does not increment them. This results in both of these
>> going to -ve values.
>>
>> This patch fixes this by calling inet_bind_hash() from ___inet_inherit_port(),
>> which does the right thing.
>>
>> 'bsockets' and 'num_owners' were introduced by commit a9d8f9110d7e953c
>> (inet: Allowing more than 64k connections and heavily optimize bind(0))
>
> Yup, things changed from that simple patch a lot.
> Thanks for fixing it up.
> Ack.
Probably I miss something, but since bsockets is increased by each
passive connection now, it seems it will trigger "hash table is full"
too early?
Jarek P.
--
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