> > > > And is anyone working on a better patch? > > > > > > I have no idea. > > > > > > > Those patches aren't "bad" in the correctness sense. So IMO any one > > > > of them is better, than having that bug in there. > > > > > > You're adding a very serious performance regression, which is > > > about as bad as the bug itself. > > > > No, correctness always trumps performance. > > To a point. There is no black and white in this world. > > > Lost packets on an AF_UNIX socket are _unexceptable_, and this is > > definitely not a theoretical problem. > > A lot of people will consider having all of their AF_UNIX sockets on > their 64 cpu system just stop when garbage collection runs to be > unacceptable as well.
Garbage collection only ever happens, if the app is sending AF_UNIX sockets over AF_UNIX sockets. Which is a rather rare case. And which is basically why this bug went unnoticed for so long. So my second patch only affects the performance of _exactly_ those apps which might well be bitten by the bug itself. > Secondarily, this bug has been around for years and nobody noticed. > The world will not explode if this bug takes a few more days or > even a week to work out. Let's do it right instead of ramming > arbitrary turds into the kernel. Fine, but just wishing a bug to get fixed won't accomplish anything. I've spent a fair amount of time debugging this thing, and I'm out of ideas. Really. So unless somebody steps up to look at this, it won't _ever_ get fixed. Miklos - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
