On 30 August 2012 04:23, Vijay Singh <vijju.si...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is there any reason why sorele() needs the accept lock to be held?
>
> 231 #define sorele(so) do {
> \
> 232 ACCEPT_LOCK_ASSERT();
> \
> 233 SOCK_LOCK_ASSERT(so);
> \
> 234 if ((so)->so_count <= 0)
> \
> 235 panic("sorele");
> \
> 236 if (--(so)->so_count == 0)
> \
> 237 sofree(so);
> \
> 238 else {
> \
> 239 SOCK_UNLOCK(so);
> \
> 240 ACCEPT_UNLOCK();
> \
> 241 }
> \
> 242 } while (0)
sofree() needs accept lock to be held to operate on a qstate field.
sofree() callers cannot be changed to push accept lock acquisition into
sofree() because that would require to reacquire sock lock around accept
lock to take locks in order; this in turn opens race.
See r136682 for details.
--
wbr,
pluknet
_______________________________________________
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-net
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-net-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
