On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:08:03PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > 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. >
That's right, it will fix a WARN_ON(). I just feel that this change is too intrusive for -net. But if you think it's okay, okay then. Marcelo
