From: Xin Long
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2018 15:55:34 +0800
> It's under the protection of the sock lock, I think any other places
> that want to access the address also need to acquire this sock lock
> first.
Hash table lookups don't even have a socket context yet, so can't hold
the sock lock, but loo
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 2:31 AM David Miller wrote:
>
> From: Xin Long
> Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:27:28 +0800
>
> > When processing pmtu update from an icmp packet, it calls .update_pmtu
> > with sk instead of skb in sctp_transport_update_pmtu.
> >
> > However for sctp, the daddr in the transpor
From: Xin Long
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2018 17:27:28 +0800
> When processing pmtu update from an icmp packet, it calls .update_pmtu
> with sk instead of skb in sctp_transport_update_pmtu.
>
> However for sctp, the daddr in the transport might be different from
> inet_sock->inet_daddr or sk->sk_v6_dadd
On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 05:27:28PM +0800, Xin Long wrote:
> When processing pmtu update from an icmp packet, it calls .update_pmtu
> with sk instead of skb in sctp_transport_update_pmtu.
>
> However for sctp, the daddr in the transport might be different from
> inet_sock->inet_daddr or sk->sk_v6_d
When processing pmtu update from an icmp packet, it calls .update_pmtu
with sk instead of skb in sctp_transport_update_pmtu.
However for sctp, the daddr in the transport might be different from
inet_sock->inet_daddr or sk->sk_v6_daddr, which is used to update or
create the route cache. The incorre
