Re: Linux 3.1-rc9

[Linus Torvalds]

On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 11:05 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Yes, but only when tproxy is used, and in some obscure error
> conditions... Probably nobody ever hit them or complained.

Yes, I'm not disputing that. However, it does show how incredibly
fragile that code is.

May I suggest renaming those "clone_sk()" kinds of functions
"clone_sk_lock()" or something? So that you *see* that it's locked as
it is cloned. That might have made the bug not happen in the first
place..

Of course, maybe it's obvious to most net people - just not me looking
at the code - that the new socket ended up being locked at allocation.
But considering the bug happened twice, that "obvious" part is clearly
debatable..

                          Linus
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/