Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix a potential deadlock in tcp_get_info()

2015-05-22 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Dumazet Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 11:08:39 -0700 > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 11:03 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > >> Also I am wondering if not explicitly include >> could break one arch... > > Sorry for the false alarm, we should be good because of snmp.h Right. -- To unsubscribe from this

Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix a potential deadlock in tcp_get_info()

2015-05-22 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Dumazet Date: Fri, 22 May 2015 10:56:36 -0700 > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 13:50 -0400, David Miller wrote: > >> This bug exists in 'net' so I've applied it there. >> >> Thanks Eric. > > Oh thats right, sorry for this, as you'll probably have a conflict when > merging net into net-next.

Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix a potential deadlock in tcp_get_info()

2015-05-22 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 11:03 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > Also I am wondering if not explicitly include > could break one arch... Sorry for the false alarm, we should be good because of snmp.h -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to major

Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix a potential deadlock in tcp_get_info()

2015-05-22 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 10:56 -0700, Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 13:50 -0400, David Miller wrote: > > > This bug exists in 'net' so I've applied it there. > > > > Thanks Eric. > > Oh thats right, sorry for this, as you'll probably have a conflict when > merging net into net-next.

Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix a potential deadlock in tcp_get_info()

2015-05-22 Thread Eric Dumazet
On Fri, 2015-05-22 at 13:50 -0400, David Miller wrote: > This bug exists in 'net' so I've applied it there. > > Thanks Eric. Oh thats right, sorry for this, as you'll probably have a conflict when merging net into net-next. Thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

Re: [PATCH net-next] tcp: fix a potential deadlock in tcp_get_info()

2015-05-22 Thread David Miller
From: Eric Dumazet Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 21:51:19 -0700 > From: Eric Dumazet > > Taking socket spinlock in tcp_get_info() can deadlock, as > inet_diag_dump_icsk() holds the &hashinfo->ehash_locks[i], > while packet processing can use the reverse locking order. > > We could avoid this locking

[PATCH net-next] tcp: fix a potential deadlock in tcp_get_info()

2015-05-21 Thread Eric Dumazet
From: Eric Dumazet Taking socket spinlock in tcp_get_info() can deadlock, as inet_diag_dump_icsk() holds the &hashinfo->ehash_locks[i], while packet processing can use the reverse locking order. We could avoid this locking for TCP_LISTEN states, but lockdep would certainly get confused as all TC