On Mon, Dec 23, 2002 at 12:40:17AM -0200, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo wrote:
>
> Anders, if you're feeling brave, from the top of my head, think about what
> happens if somebody only reads the first, say, 10 bytes of /proc/net/tcp, will
> we unlocking a not held lock at tcp_seq_stop, no? :-)
Yes, I was just looking into the locking... But it's rather messy with locks
between calls and goto's and I think I'd better get some sleep before saying
anything for certain. Is there any reason holding the lock between
listening_get_first() and the first call to listening_get_next(), but not
between consecutive calls to listening_get_next()? Otherwise we could just
always release the lock in listening_get_first.
(All this applies to established_get_first/next too.)
OOPS, I just realizes we might be talking about different locks :)
I was talking about
read_[un]lock_bh(&tp->syn_wait_lock); in listening_get_first/next
What lock are you talking about?
As far as I can see, in TCP_SEQ_STATE_OPENREQ tp->syn_wait_lock is always
held and in TCP_SEQ_STATE_LISTENING the tcp_listen_lock and so on?
-- Anders Gustafsson - andersg@0x63.nu - http://0x63.nu/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Dec 23 2002 - 22:00:31 EST