[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD235PTyEce0S-22vg=opQdq0MUwEovdx5henU=9Mwh3Rf8QrA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2023 17:45:29 +0100
From: Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>
Cc: dccp@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>, David Ahern <dsahern@...nel.org>,
Juri Lelli <juri.lelli@...hat.com>, Tomas Glozar <tglozar@...hat.com>,
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] tcp/dcpp: Un-pin tw_timer
On Thu, 23 Nov 2023 at 17:32, Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 23, 2023 at 3:34 PM Valentin Schneider <vschneid@...hat.com> wrote:
> > I thought that was already the case, per inet_twsk_hashdance():
> >
> > /* tw_refcnt is set to 3 because we have :
> > * - one reference for bhash chain.
> > * - one reference for ehash chain.
> > * - one reference for timer.
> >
> > and
> >
> > tw_timer_handler()
> > `\
> > inet_twsk_kill()
> > `\
> > inet_twsk_put()
> >
> > So AFAICT, after we go through the hashdance, there's a reference on
> > tw_refcnt held by the tw_timer.
> > inet_twsk_deschedule_put() can race with arming the timer, but it only
> > calls inet_twsk_kill() if the timer
> > was already armed & has been deleted, so there's no risk of calling it
> > twice... If I got it right :-)
> >
>
> Again, I think you missed some details.
>
> I am OOO for a few days, I do not have time to elaborate.
>
> You will need to properly track active timer by elevating
> tw->tw_refcnt, or I guarantee something wrong will happen.
>
Gotcha, let me dig into this then!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists