Re: [PATCH] sctp: be mroe restrictive in transport selection on bundled sacks

[Vlad Yasevich <vyasevich@gmail.com>]

On 06/27/2012 06:24 AM, Neil Horman wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 09:05:04PM -0700, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Neil Horman<nhorman@tuxdriver.com>
>> Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:31:44 -0400
>>
>>> @@ -240,15 +240,20 @@ static sctp_xmit_t sctp_packet_bundle_sack(struct sctp_packet *pkt,
>>>   	 */
>>>   	if (sctp_chunk_is_data(chunk)&&  !pkt->has_sack&&
>>>   	!pkt->has_cookie_echo) {
>>> -		struct sctp_association *asoc;
>>>   		struct timer_list *timer;
>>> -		asoc = pkt->transport->asoc;
>>> +		struct sctp_association *asoc = pkt->transport->asoc;
>>> +		struct sctp_transport *trans;
>>> +
>>>   		timer =&asoc->timers[SCTP_EVENT_TIMEOUT_SACK];
>>>
>>>   		/* If the SACK timer is running, we have a pending SACK */
>>>   		if (timer_pending(timer)) {
>>>   			struct sctp_chunk *sack;
>>>   			asoc->a_rwnd = asoc->rwnd;
>>> +
>>> +			if (chunk->transport&&  !chunk->transport->moved_ctsn)
>>> +				return retval;
>>> +
>>>   			sack = sctp_make_sack(asoc);
>>>   			if (sack) {
>>>   				retval = sctp_packet_append_chunk(pkt, sack);
>>
>> The new local variable 'trans' seems to be unused.
>>
> Crap, thank you Dave, that was a holdover from an initial pass I had made in
> writing this.  I'll repost with that removed once Vald has a chance to look this
> over
> Neil
>

Also, may want to move a_rwnd adjustment to after the new if clause.  No 
sense adjusting it if we are just going to bail.

-vlad