From owner-cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Oct 20 04:44:41 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: cvs-all@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB79716A4CE; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:44:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ebb.errno.com (ebb.errno.com [66.127.85.87]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8EC5943D39; Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:44:41 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Received: from [66.127.85.93] ([66.127.85.93]) (authenticated bits=0) by ebb.errno.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i9K4ifWi044517 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:44:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sam@errno.com) Message-ID: <4175ED52.6070508@errno.com> Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:45:06 -0700 From: Sam Leffler Organization: Errno Consulting User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (Macintosh/20040913) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andre Oppermann References: <200410191513.i9JFDUbf072176@repoman.freebsd.org> <417532A2.9000901@errno.com> <41753522.1E39FEAE@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <41753522.1E39FEAE@freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org cc: cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/sys protosw.h src/sys/kern uipc_domain.cuipc_socket2.c X-BeenThere: cvs-all@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the entire tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2004 04:44:42 -0000 Andre Oppermann wrote: > Sam Leffler wrote: > >>Andre Oppermann wrote: >> >>>andre 2004-10-19 15:13:30 UTC >>> >>> FreeBSD src repository >>> >>> Modified files: >>> sys/sys protosw.h >>> sys/kern uipc_domain.c uipc_socket2.c >>> Log: >>> Support for dynamically loadable and unloadable protocols within existing protocol >>> families. >>> >> >>I don't recall seeing this posted anywhere for comment. I have some >>concerns about this general topic and this code seems incomplete (e.g. I >>see no locking). > > > Locking is not needed because there are no dead moments in transitioning > from unregistered to registered and back. All calls to any of the protocol > specific functions will return a valid result (even if it is only EOPNOTSUPP). > There is no list manipulation going on. > > The caller of the function is required to assure that no dangeling sockets, > references or memory allocations are left behind after unregistering. It's > simply impossible to solve otherwise. For IPDIVERT which I have converted > this works very well (it will simply refuse to unload if a divert socket is > open). > > What remaining concerns do you have? I went away for the day. It seems many people have responded though not addressing all my concerns. While I applaud your effort to attack this problem I must say I am totally disgusted by the way in which you've dropped this code in the tree with no review or opportunity for comment. There are many decisions made here that I disagree with and from the subsequent commits to patchup issues it's clear your work needed some "soak time" before going in CVS. Sam