On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:08:03PM -0700, David Miller wrote:

From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:25:35 -0300

quoted

On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 08:00:45PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:

quoted

Prior to this patch, sctp defined TCP_CLOSING as SCTP_SS_CLOSING.
TCP_CLOSING is such a special sk state in TCP that inet common codes
even exclude it.

For instance, inet_accept thinks the accept sk's state never be
TCP_CLOSING, or it will give a WARN_ON. TCP works well with that
while SCTP may trigger the call trace, as CLOSING state in SCTP
has different meaning from TCP.

This fix is to change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS_CLOSING,
instead of TCP_CLOSING. Some side-effects could be expected,
regardless of not being used before. inet_accept will accept it
now.

I did all the func_tests in lksctp-tools and ran sctp codnomicon
fuzzer tests against this patch, no regression or failure found.

Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien.xin@gmail.com>

I don't think this is -net material. It's a one line change but a core
one.
Dave please consider it for net-next instead.
Though, Xin you may need to re-post later..

Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leitner@gmail.com>

But, the commit log message says that inet_accept() will generate
a WARN_ON() call trace without this change.  That makes it sound
like it's 'net' material to me.

That's right, it will fix a WARN_ON(). I just feel that this change is
too intrusive for -net. But if you think it's okay, okay then.

  Marcelo