On Sat, Dec 19, 2015 at 12:23 AM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner
<marcelo.leit...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 18, 2015 at 09:08:46AM -0500, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> On 12/17/2015 02:33 PM, Vlad Yasevich wrote:
>> > On 12/17/2015 02:01 PM, Marcelo Ricardo Leitner wrote:
> ...
>> >> There is a check on sctp_cmd_delete_tcb() that avoids calling that on
>> >> temp assocs on
>> >> listening sockets, but that condition is false due to the check on
>> >> sk_shutdown so it will
>> >> call those two functions anyway.
>> >
>> > The condition I am a bit concerned about is one thread waiting in
>> > sctp_wait_for_sndbuf
>> > while another does an abort.
>> >
>> > I think this is OK though. I need to look a bit more...
>>
>> I think the only time this ends up biting us is if SO_SNDTIMEO was used and
>> we ran out
>> of send buffer. It looks to me like schedule_timeout() will wait until
>> timer expired and
>> depending on the timer value, you could wait quite a while.
>>
>> With this path, since you don't transition state, the asoc->wait wait queue
>> is never
>> notified and it could be hanging around for quite a while.
do you think it makes sense if we have this condition judgment there ?
if (waitqueue_active(&asoc->wait))
wake_up_interruptible(&asoc->wait);
>
> Yes, agreed. For blocking sockets, it could hang waiting until the
> application finally closes. Thanks Vlad.
>
> Marcelo
>
--
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
