[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151218162357.GB5050@mrl.redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2015 14:23:57 -0200
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
To: Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@...il.com>
Cc: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>,
network dev <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, vyasevic@...hat.com,
davem@...emloft.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: sctp should release assoc when
sctp_make_abort_user return NULL in sctp_close
On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:08:46AM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> On 12/17/2015 02:33 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
> > On 12/17/2015 02:01 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
...
> >> There is a check on sctp_cmd_delete_tcb() that avoids calling that on temp assocs on
> >> listening sockets, but that condition is false due to the check on sk_shutdown so it will
> >> call those two functions anyway.
> >
> > The condition I am a bit concerned about is one thread waiting in sctp_wait_for_sndbuf
> > while another does an abort.
> >
> > I think this is OK though. I need to look a bit more...
>
> I think the only time this ends up biting us is if SO_SNDTIMEO was used and we ran out
> of send buffer. It looks to me like schedule_timeout() will wait until timer expired and
> depending on the timer value, you could wait quite a while.
>
> With this path, since you don't transition state, the asoc->wait wait queue is never
> notified and it could be hanging around for quite a while.
Yes, agreed. For blocking sockets, it could hang waiting until the
application finally closes. Thanks Vlad.
Marcelo
--
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