On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 19:13 +0100, Paolo Abeni wrote: > On Mon, 2015-11-30 at 08:35 -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > > ip6_sk_dst_lookup_flow() uses sk_dst_check() anyway, so the simplest > > way to fix the mess is to remove sk_dst_lock completely, as we did for > > IPv4. > > Probably I'm missing something here, but why we don't need to sync the > update of sk_dst_cache and of dst_cookie (i.e. put them under the same > lock)? > > Can't we end up with inconsistent values after concurrent udp > sendmsg() ?
I do not think this is an issue. A route is best effort. If really a packet is dropped during a route flap, no big deal, especially if this is during a fuzzer test ;) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
