On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:39:22AM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2012-10-22 at 19:14 +0200, Krzysztof Mazur wrote: > > The pppoatm gets a reference to atmvcc, but does not increment vcc > > usage count. The vcc uses vcc->sk socket for reference counting, > > so sock_hold() and sock_put() should be used by pppoatm. > > > > Signed-off-by: Krzysztof Mazur <krzys...@podlesie.net> > > Cc: David Woodhouse <dw...@infradead.org> > > Acked-By: David Woodhouse <david.woodho...@intel.com>
This patch is not needed, because vcc_destroy_socket() calls pppoatm_push(vcc, NULL) to indicate that vcc is now closed, before vcc_release() calls sock_put() and it's properly handled by pppoatm. I will drop this patch. > > But did you spot what's in the end of the context of the first hunk...? > > > --- a/net/atm/pppoatm.c > > +++ b/net/atm/pppoatm.c > > @@ -154,6 +154,7 @@ static void pppoatm_unassign_vcc(struct atm_vcc > > *atmvcc) > > tasklet_kill(&pvcc->wakeup_tasklet); > > ppp_unregister_channel(&pvcc->chan); > > atmvcc->user_back = NULL; > > + sock_put(sk_atm(pvcc->atmvcc)); > > kfree(pvcc); > > /* Gee, I hope we have the big kernel lock here... */ > > module_put(THIS_MODULE); > > Fairly sure that hope is unfounded these days... :) > Yes, I saw that. Thanks. Krzysiek -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
