[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANn89iL_OU1w6TTdZe45PaDkR9o8BbdXoTuF1XS9Ed=5g_NdAA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2023 20:19:05 +0200
From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
To: Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com>
Cc: "David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
eric.dumazet@...il.com, syzbot <syzkaller@...glegroups.com>,
Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: annotate data-races around sk->sk_wmem_queued
On Tue, Aug 29, 2023 at 8:14 PM Xin Long <lucien.xin@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 28, 2023 at 8:44 AM Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > sk->sk_wmem_queued can be read locklessly from sctp_poll()
> >
> > sk->sk_rcvbuf);
> Just wondering why sk->sk_sndbuf/sk_rcvbuf doesn't need READ_ONCE()
> while adding READ_ONCE for sk->sk_wmem_queued in here?
>
Separate patches for sk_sndbuf, sk_rcvbuf, sk_err, sk_shutdown, and
many other socket fields.
I prefer having small patches to reduce merge conflicts in backports.
Note that I used READ_ONCE(sk->sk_sndbuf) in sctp_writeable(),
(I assume this is why you asked)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists