Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 14:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20100420.142405.228805796.davem@davemloft.net>
To: eric.dumazet@gmail.com
Cc: raise.sail@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: A possible bug in reqsk_queue_hash_req()
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <1271761611.3845.223.camel@edumazet-laptop>
References: <i2x9b948ee41004200335vc229a59cvc0a08c35c949d7dd@mail.gmail.com>
	<1271761611.3845.223.camel@edumazet-laptop>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 858
Lines: 24

From: Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 13:06:51 +0200

> I believe its not really necessary, because we are the only possible
> writer at this stage.
> 
> The write_lock() ... write_unlock() is there only to enforce a
> synchronisation with readers.
> 
> All callers of this reqsk_queue_hash_req() must have the socket locked

Right.

In fact there are quite a few snippets around the networking
where we use this trick of only locking around the single
pointer assignment that puts the object into the list.

And they were all written by Alexey Kuznetsov, so they must
be correct :-)
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/