Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:02:52 -0600 (CST)
From:      Mike Silbersack <silby@silby.com>
To:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        cvs-src@FreeBSD.org
Subject:   Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet tcp_syncache.c 
Message-ID:  <20031110215128.F6320@odysseus.silby.com>
In-Reply-To: <20031110.170151.81945639.imp@bsdimp.com>
References:  <sam@errno.com> <200311102359.hAANx2xu023566@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> <20031110.170151.81945639.imp@bsdimp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> In message: <200311102359.hAANx2xu023566@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net>
>             Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> writes:
> : Are you kidding me?  Or do you really not understand why it's not
> : Giant-free ready yet?
>
> While it may be obvious to you, it seems that a sentence or two about
> how it isn't giant-free would be useful.
>
> Warner

If I'm not mistaken, syncache_timer calls syncache_respond, which then
goes and interacts with the routing table and ip stack.  Along with the
rest of the non-locked code, it sure looks like it's not-MPSAFE to me.

It seems "obvious" that the code isn't giant-free, given that there are no
locking assertions in it whatsoever.

Mike "Silby" Silbersack



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20031110215128.F6320>