Date: Sun, 21 May 2006 19:04:57 +0100 (BST) From: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org> To: Maxim Konovalov <maxim@macomnet.ru> Cc: current@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: HEADS UP: socket and pcb reference changes entering tree today Message-ID: <20060521190358.G8068@fledge.watson.org> In-Reply-To: <20060521215823.H6324@mp2.macomnet.net> References: <20060317141627.W2181@fledge.watson.org> <20060329100839.V19236@fledge.watson.org> <20060401102918.P79188@fledge.watson.org> <20060401170554.R82503@fledge.watson.org> <20060402233436.P76562@fledge.watson.org> <20060515025600.U70399@mp2.macomnet.net> <20060521185034.K8068@fledge.watson.org> <20060521215823.H6324@mp2.macomnet.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 21 May 2006, Maxim Konovalov wrote: >> This looks good in terms of pcb structure, but you should acquire SOCK_LOCK >> around the so_state manipulation. To prevent races, I suggest doing it >> while also holding the INP lock in the center of the locking sets from the >> inpcb. There are some other remaining bugs in the raw socket code elsewhere >> also, I think. > > I "copied" this code from udp_usrreq.c::udp_disconnect(). There is no such > lock. Is it a bug too? Yes. I have some intuitions about why the datagram protocols manually frob the disconnected flag rather than calling soisdisconnected(), but am generally unsure that this is the right thing. Robert N M Watson
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060521190358.G8068>