[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250923005441.4131554-1-kuniyu@google.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:54:19 +0000
From: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
To: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Neal Cardwell <ncardwell@...gle.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>,
Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuni1840@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH v1 net-next] tcp: Remove stale locking comment for TFO.
The listener -> child locking no longer exists in the fast path
since commit e994b2f0fb92 ("tcp: do not lock listener to process
SYN packets").
Let's remove the stale comment for reqsk_fastopen_remove().
Signed-off-by: Kuniyuki Iwashima <kuniyu@...gle.com>
---
net/core/request_sock.c | 4 +---
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/core/request_sock.c b/net/core/request_sock.c
index 63de5c635842..897a8f01a67b 100644
--- a/net/core/request_sock.c
+++ b/net/core/request_sock.c
@@ -77,9 +77,7 @@ void reqsk_queue_alloc(struct request_sock_queue *queue)
* a simple spin lock - one must consider sock_owned_by_user() and arrange
* to use sk_add_backlog() stuff. But what really makes it infeasible is the
* locking hierarchy violation. E.g., inet_csk_listen_stop() may try to
- * acquire a child's lock while holding listener's socket lock. A corner
- * case might also exist in tcp_v4_hnd_req() that will trigger this locking
- * order.
+ * acquire a child's lock while holding listener's socket lock.
*
* This function also sets "treq->tfo_listener" to false.
* treq->tfo_listener is used by the listener so it is protected by the
--
2.51.0.534.gc79095c0ca-goog
Powered by blists - more mailing lists