From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:25:35 -0300
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 08:00:45PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: >> Prior to this patch, sctp defined TCP_CLOSING as SCTP_SS_CLOSING. >> TCP_CLOSING is such a special sk state in TCP that inet common codes >> even exclude it. >> >> For instance, inet_accept thinks the accept sk's state never be >> TCP_CLOSING, or it will give a WARN_ON. TCP works well with that >> while SCTP may trigger the call trace, as CLOSING state in SCTP >> has different meaning from TCP. >> >> This fix is to change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS_CLOSING, >> instead of TCP_CLOSING. Some side-effects could be expected, >> regardless of not being used before. inet_accept will accept it >> now. >> >> I did all the func_tests in lksctp-tools and ran sctp codnomicon >> fuzzer tests against this patch, no regression or failure found. >> >> Signed-off-by: Xin Long <lucien....@gmail.com> > > I don't think this is -net material. It's a one line change but a core > one. > Dave please consider it for net-next instead. > Though, Xin you may need to re-post later.. > > Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner <marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> But, the commit log message says that inet_accept() will generate a WARN_ON() call trace without this change. That makes it sound like it's 'net' material to me.
