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 threadReceived on Wed Oct 03 2007 - 21:58:42 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:18 UTC