Aryeh Friedman wrote: > On 10/3/07, Randall Stewart <rrs_at_cisco.com> wrote: > >>Martin: >> >>Thanks for the patch.. note that I will submit it to >>re for approval after a minor fix. >> >>socantrcvmore(so); >> >>assumes you do NOT hold a lock. This code holds >>the socket lock.. which is the recv sockbuf lock.. >> >>So if you turn witness on your kernel and run with this >>you will have a double lock.. panic. >> >>Note to fix this right you should have it be: >> SOCK_UNLOCK(so); >>+ socantrcvmore(so); >> >>Which is what I will submit to release ops.. you may want >>to change this in what you are working with so you don;t >>have some other side-effect issue from the double lock.. like >>leaking sockets. > > > Does this solve the many issues with warning messages and syn/ack > being received after close and such? Also I think this might also be > related to the re(3) patch I mentioned in an other thread > This is SCTP not TCP... so no I don't think it will help any syn-ack problems. R -- Randall Stewart NSSTG - Cisco Systems Inc. 803-345-0369 <or> 803-317-4952 (cell)Received on Wed Oct 03 2007 - 21:42:22 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC