On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 17:59:25 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > Sorry for all the questions, I'm not really able to fully wrap my head > > > around this. I also feel like I'm missing the sockmap piece that may > > > be why you prefer unhash over disconnect. > > > > Yep, if we try to support listening sockets we need a some more > > core infrastructure to push around ulp and user_data portions of > > sockets. Its not going to be nice for stable. Also at least in TLS > > and sockmap case its not really needed for any use case I know > > of. > > IIUC we can't go from ESTABLISHED to LISTEN without calling close() > or disconnect() so I'm not clear on why are we hooking into unhash() 😕
Ah, disconnect() is also called with the socket already locked. So no BH, but still not great..
