Re: [PATCH net v2] ipv6: fix rtnl locking in setsockopt for anycast and multicast
From: Hannes Frederic Sowa
Date: Fri Sep 05 2014 - 15:13:07 EST
On Fr, 2014-09-05 at 11:58 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:53 AM, David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > From: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 10:29:29 +0200
> >> Calling setsockopt with IPV6_JOIN_ANYCAST or IPV6_LEAVE_ANYCAST
> >> triggers the assertion in addrconf_join_solict()/addrconf_leave_solict()
> >> ipv6_sock_ac_join(), ipv6_sock_ac_drop(), ipv6_sock_ac_close() need to
> >> take RTNL before calling ipv6_dev_ac_inc/dec. Same thing with
> >> ipv6_sock_mc_join(), ipv6_sock_mc_drop(), ipv6_sock_mc_close() before
> >> calling ipv6_dev_mc_inc/dec.
> >> This patch moves ASSERT_RTNL() up a level in the call stack.
> >> Signed-off-by: Cong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> Signed-off-by: Sabrina Dubroca <sd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> Reported-by: Tommi Rantala <tt.rantala@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Applied and queued up for -stable, thanks.
> I believe you applied a wrong version, at least the following
> is not correct:
> + if (!dev)
> + return -ENODEV;
> Sabrina took that from my draft patch, but they all don't
> realize this is wrong.
> (I did provide a correct version which is just ignored by you.)
What games are you playing? You know how patches are processed by David
and I even let him the choice by pointing out a problem in your patch so
that you could an update and send v2.
I really feel miffed about your behavior!
Anyway, I saw the hunk adding the return -ENODEV and didn't see any
problems with it. Sure it might be better if it would gone into a
separate patch. Can you elaborate what problems you see?
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/