On Thu, 2016-10-20 at 12:44 -0700, Cong Wang wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 12:32 PM, Cong Wang <xiyou.wangc...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 10:26 AM, Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>> From: Eric Dumazet <eduma...@google.com>
> >>>
> >>> In commit 4ee3bd4a8c746 ("ipv4: disable BH when changing ip local port
> >>> range") Cong added BH protection in set_local_port_range() but missed
> >>> that same fix was needed in set_ping_group_range()
> >>
> >> Don't know why ping_group_range shares the same lock with
> >> local_port_range...
> >> Perhaps just for saving a few bytes, but that is why I missed this place.
> >
> > Hold on... We clearly have typos there... Your fix is not correct.
>
> We need the attached patch, your patch should be reverted, because
> unlike local_port_range we never read it in BH context, no need to bother _bh.
Well, we do not change this sysctl very often, so I am not sure why we
need different seqlocks to protect these ranges.
Seems a waste of space really (per netns)
