> Nope, I think that tulip has nothing to do with that.
> Try patch at the end of this letter, it definitely should help you.
It should make absolutely no odds.
> ALAN: What do you think about backporting of locking on Fasync_list
> from 2.3 to 2.2, is that needed?
That actually looks like what is needed
> + if(sock->fasync_list != NULL)
> + kill_fasync(sock->fasync_list, SIGIO);
The kill_fasync code starts
while(fa)
so it checks this. For that oops trace to be right it would imply someone
zapped the list. The list is only changed by fasync_helper. That locks the
list when doing the two critical updates for adding/removing an entry and
seems to have a small race. I find it hard to believe this is what is going
on but unless I am missing something
save_flags(flags);
cli();
*fp = fa->fa_next;
restore_flags(flags);
kfree(fa);
return 1;
is safe even SMP since the cli/restore_flags means that we cannot be part
way down a queue walk when the entry is freed.
Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:24 EST