Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 02:14:38 -0700 From: Jeffrey Hsu <hsu@FreeBSD.org> To: Don Lewis <dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org> Cc: cvs-committers@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: cvs commit: src/sys/netinet udp_usrreq.c Message-ID: <0GZ400HU8PNLLG@mta7.pltn13.pbi.net> In-Reply-To: Message from Don Lewis <dl-freebsd@catspoiler.org> "of Fri, 12 Jul 2002 01:46:59 PDT." <200207120847.g6C8kxwr013248@gw.catspoiler.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Comparing udp_getcred() with tcp_getcred(), the missing lock looked like > an oversight. Okay, I see the confusion. I had the same question when I reviewed Jennifer's patch, but decided to err on the side of conservatism and allow it. I actually believe that lock is unnecessary in tcp_getcred(). > Isn't it possible for inp->inp_socket to get modified by > another thread in either case unless inp is locked? Unless I missed a code path, I don't see how that can happen. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?0GZ400HU8PNLLG>