[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20160730.220803.1463117783142907557.davem@davemloft.net>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 22:08:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To: marcelo.leitner@...il.com
Cc: lucien.xin@...il.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-sctp@...r.kernel.org, vyasevich@...il.com,
daniel@...earbox.net
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as
SCTP_SS_CLOSING
From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:25:35 -0300
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 08:00:45PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
>> Prior to this patch, sctp defined TCP_CLOSING as SCTP_SS_CLOSING.
>> TCP_CLOSING is such a special sk state in TCP that inet common codes
>> even exclude it.
>>
>> For instance, inet_accept thinks the accept sk's state never be
>> TCP_CLOSING, or it will give a WARN_ON. TCP works well with that
>> while SCTP may trigger the call trace, as CLOSING state in SCTP
>> has different meaning from TCP.
>>
>> This fix is to change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS_CLOSING,
>> instead of TCP_CLOSING. Some side-effects could be expected,
>> regardless of not being used before. inet_accept will accept it
>> now.
>>
>> I did all the func_tests in lksctp-tools and ran sctp codnomicon
>> fuzzer tests against this patch, no regression or failure found.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
>
> I don't think this is -net material. It's a one line change but a core
> one.
> Dave please consider it for net-next instead.
> Though, Xin you may need to re-post later..
>
> Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
But, the commit log message says that inet_accept() will generate
a WARN_ON() call trace without this change. That makes it sound
like it's 'net' material to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists