On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 10:57 +0200, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2014-07-07 at 11:03 +0300, Andrey Utkin wrote: > > 2014-07-07 0:42 GMT+03:00 Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com>: > > >> /* Queue packet (standard) */ > > >> + sock_hold(sock); > > >> + skb->destructor = atalk_skb_destructor; > > >> skb->sk = sock; > > > > > > This part is not needed : sock_queue_rcv_skb() already does the right > > > thing : It calls skb_set_owner_r(skb, sk); > > > > > > You should therefore remove the "skb->sk = sock;" line > > > > If it is so, i think this should be as another patch with its own reasoning. > > > > No it is not. > > Its illegal to set skb->sk to a socket without taking proper reference. > > But it is useless to do this before calling sock_queue_rcv_skb(), as I > explained to you. > > This is adding two extra atomic operations for nothing: skb_orphan() is > called from sock_queue_rcv_skb(), so it is kind of stupid to set a > destructor that _will_ be immediately called. > > We do not do defensive programming, we try to do logical things, and > only logical things. > > Please re-spin your patch, by integrating my feedback. > > Thanks !
Reading again this code, I think all you need is to remove the 2 buggy lines. No need for setup destructors. -- 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/
