Eric Dumazet a écrit :
Jiri Olsa a écrit :
quoted
I made the modification, plz check the attached diff.
I found some places where the read_lock is not ahead of the check:
"if (sk->sk_sleep && waitqueue_active(sk->sk_sleep))"
I'm not sure we dont want to address those as well; located in following
files:
drivers/net/tun.c
net/core/stream.c
net/sctp/socket.c
net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
We'll take care of them later :)
quoted
thanks,
jirka
This patch is OK with me, please submit a new formal patch with
fresh ChangeLog so that we can all agree and Signed-off-by/Acked-by
Oleg, I think your comment can be addressed in a followup patch ?
Thanks to all
To clarify, I meant the second comment from Oleg.
Jiri, please define a "smp_mb__after_lock()" instead of smp_mb__after_read_lock()
+/* The {read|write|spin}_lock() on x86 are full memory barriers. */
+#define smp_mb__after_lock() do { } while (0)
+