Stephen Hemminger a écrit :
On Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:53:37 +1100
Herbert Xu [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Evgeniy Polyakov [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
So it is not explicit bind call, but port autoselection in the
connect(). Can you check what errno is returned?
Did I understand it right, that connect fails, you try different
address, but then suddenly all those sockets become 'alive'?
Yes, I think a good strace vs. a bad strace would be really helpful
in these cases.
Thanks,
I have the strace but it comes up no different.
What is different is that in the broken case (net-next), I see
IPV6 being used:
State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port
ESTAB 23769 0 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:5900 ::ffff:127.0.0.1:55987
ESTAB 0 0 127.0.0.1:55987 127.0.0.1:5900
and in the working case (2.6.29-rc3), IPV4 is being used
State Recv-Q Send-Q Local Address:Port Peer Address:Port
ESTAB 0 0 127.0.0.1:58894 127.0.0.1:5901
ESTAB 0 0 127.0.0.1:5901 127.0.0.1:58894
Reviewing commit a9d8f9110d7e953c2f2b521087a4179677843c2a
I see use of a hashinfo->bsockets field that :
- lacks proper lock/synchronization
- suffers from cache line ping pongs on SMP
Also there might be a problem at line 175
if (sk->sk_reuse && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN && --attempts >= 0) {
spin_unlock(&head->lock);
goto again;
If we entered inet_csk_get_port() with a non null snum, we can "goto again"
while it was not expected.
diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
index df8e72f..752c6b2 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
@@ -172,7 +172,8 @@ tb_found:
} else {
ret = 1;
if (inet_csk(sk)->icsk_af_ops->bind_conflict(sk, tb)) {
- if (sk->sk_reuse && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN && --attempts >= 0) {
+ if (sk->sk_reuse && sk->sk_state != TCP_LISTEN &&
+ smallest_size == -1 && --attempts >= 0) {
spin_unlock(&head->lock);
goto again;
}