On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 11:12:00AM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:04:31 +0100 Stefano Garzarella wrote:
What do you suggest?
I did it this way because by modifying only the caller, we would have a
nested lock.
This way instead we are sure that if we backport this patch, we
On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:04:31 +0100 Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> What do you suggest?
>
> I did it this way because by modifying only the caller, we would have a
> nested lock.
>
> This way instead we are sure that if we backport this patch, we don't
> forget to touch hvs_shutdown() as well.
I'm
On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 03:43:07PM +0100, Stefano Garzarella wrote:
In vsock_shutdown() we touched some socket fields without holding the
socket lock, such as 'state' and 'sk_flags'.
Also, after the introduction of multi-transport, we are accessing
'vsk->transport' in vsock_send_shutdown() witho
In vsock_shutdown() we touched some socket fields without holding the
socket lock, such as 'state' and 'sk_flags'.
Also, after the introduction of multi-transport, we are accessing
'vsk->transport' in vsock_send_shutdown() without holding the lock
and this call can be made while the connection is
