[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5df48cbb-2726-3e99-84e7-eb6c6fc0dbb2@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2017 13:44:32 -0400
From: Cole Robinson <crobinso@...hat.com>
To: josef@...icpanda.com, davem@...emloft.net, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, labbott@...hat.com,
kernel-team@...com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] fix reuseaddr regression
On 09/18/2017 12:28 PM, josef@...icpanda.com wrote:
> I introduced a regression when reworking the fastreuse port stuff that allows
> bind conflicts to occur once a reuseaddr socket successfully opens on an
> existing tb. The root cause is I reversed an if statement which caused us to
> set the tb as if there were no owners on the socket if there were, which
> obviously is not correct.
>
> Dave I have follow up patches that will add a selftest for this case and I ran
> the other reuseport related tests as well. These need to go in pretty quickly
> as it breaks kvm, I've marked them for stable. Sorry for the regression,
>
To clarify, it doesn't really break KVM specifically, but it breaks a
port collision detection idiom that libvirt depends on to successfully
launch qemu/xen/... VMs in certain cases.
Thanks,
Cole
Powered by blists - more mailing lists