From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 07:23:55 -0700
> On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 07:10 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>> On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 06:29 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>> > Sure, but the caller changed quite a lot in all stable versions.
>> >
>> > I took the easiest path for stable maint
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 07:10 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 06:29 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> > Sure, but the caller changed quite a lot in all stable versions.
> >
> > I took the easiest path for stable maintainers, and was planing to
> > implement a better way in net-next.
On Mon, 2016-03-28 at 06:29 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> Sure, but the caller changed quite a lot in all stable versions.
>
> I took the easiest path for stable maintainers, and was planing to
> implement a better way in net-next.
I misread your suggestion David, I send a V2 shortly.
On Sun, 2016-03-27 at 22:32 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:15:15 -0700
>
> > From: Eric Dumazet
> >
> > Blocking BH in __inet{6}_lookup() is not correct, as the lookups
> > are done using RCU protection.
> >
> > It matters only starting from Lorenzo
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:15:15 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> Blocking BH in __inet{6}_lookup() is not correct, as the lookups
> are done using RCU protection.
>
> It matters only starting from Lorenzo Colitti patches to destroy
> a TCP socket, since rcu_read_lock() is alre
From: Eric Dumazet
Blocking BH in __inet{6}_lookup() is not correct, as the lookups
are done using RCU protection.
It matters only starting from Lorenzo Colitti patches to destroy
a TCP socket, since rcu_read_lock() is already held by other users
of these functions.
This can be backported to al
