On Mon, Mar 06, 2017 at 01:33:19PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> After some refactoring, here's the updated diff to take the routing
> sockets out of the NET_LOCK().
>
> ok?
OK bluhm@
>
> Index: net/raw_usrreq.c
> ===
> RCS file:
After some refactoring, here's the updated diff to take the routing
sockets out of the NET_LOCK().
ok?
Index: net/raw_usrreq.c
===
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/net/raw_usrreq.c,v
retrieving revision 1.29
diff -u -p -r1.29 raw_usrreq.c
---
On Thu, Mar 02, 2017 at 10:55:41AM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Sleeping here is completely ok. The NET_LOCK() in this function is only
> taken to make sure no other thread will try to do a route lookup in
> ip_output() while we're messing with the routing table.
Then I think your change is ok
On 01/03/17(Wed) 18:17, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 01:28:45PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Routing sockets do not really need the NET_LOCK(), only route_output()
> > needs it.
>
> That depends what the future use of the netlock will be. route_input()
> is called from tc
On Tue, Feb 28, 2017 at 01:28:45PM +0100, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> Routing sockets do not really need the NET_LOCK(), only route_output()
> needs it.
That depends what the future use of the netlock will be. route_input()
is called from tcp, icmp, arp timers. Currently they have kernel
lock, but
Routing sockets do not really need the NET_LOCK(), only route_output()
needs it.
This diff change the socket layer to treat PF_ROUTE sockets just like
PF_LOCAL ones.
While here fix a rtentry leak in the error path of route_output().
Comments, oks?
Index: net/raw_usrreq.c
===
