[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1394071601.27473.17.camel@edumazet-glaptop2.roam.corp.google.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2014 18:06:41 -0800
From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@...il.com>
To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc: lars.persson@...s.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: tcp_release_cb() should release socket ownership
On Wed, 2014-03-05 at 20:59 -0500, David Miller wrote:
> It really means that sk_lock.owned cannot ever be accessed without the
> sk_lock spinlock held.
>
> Most of this is easy to hand audit, except sock_owned_by_user() which
> has call sites everywhere.
>
> Consider adding a locking assertion to it.
We can do that, but would it be a stable candidate ?
What about I send a followup for net-next ?
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