On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 03:47:25PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
> On 03/08/2019 02:40 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 02:34:07PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >
> > Long term, do we want to keep the WARN_ON_ONCE()? If so, we should
> > probably remove the comment.
>
> We wa
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2019 15:47:25 -0800
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet
Applied and queued up for -stable.
On 03/08/2019 02:40 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 02:34:07PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/08/2019 02:22 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:33:02PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
On 03/08/2019 01:09 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
>
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 02:34:07PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 03/08/2019 02:22 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:33:02PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On 03/08/2019 01:09 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> >>> @@ -216,7 +216,12 @@ struct sock *tcp_get_cookie
On 03/08/2019 02:22 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:33:02PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 03/08/2019 01:09 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
>>> @@ -216,7 +216,12 @@ struct sock *tcp_get_cookie_sock(struct sock *sk,
>>> struct sk_buff *skb,
>>> refcount_set
On Fri, Mar 08, 2019 at 01:33:02PM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
>
>
> On 03/08/2019 01:09 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> > @@ -216,7 +216,12 @@ struct sock *tcp_get_cookie_sock(struct sock *sk,
> > struct sk_buff *skb,
> > refcount_set(&req->rsk_refcnt, 1);
> > tcp_sk(child)-
On 03/08/2019 01:09 PM, Guillaume Nault wrote:
> Commit 7716682cc58e ("tcp/dccp: fix another race at listener
> dismantle") let inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add() fail, and adjusted
> {tcp,dccp}_check_req() accordingly. However, TFO and syncookies
> weren't modified, thus leaking allocated resources on
Commit 7716682cc58e ("tcp/dccp: fix another race at listener
dismantle") let inet_csk_reqsk_queue_add() fail, and adjusted
{tcp,dccp}_check_req() accordingly. However, TFO and syncookies
weren't modified, thus leaking allocated resources on error.
Contrary to tcp_check_req(), in both syncookies an
