From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marcelo.leitner@gmail.com Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2016 11:41:17 +0000 Subject: Re: [PATCH net] sctp: change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS_CLOSING Message-Id: <20160801114117.GB2954@localhost.localdomain> List-Id: References: <0517133e5f1dee8136f3a1c3bfaac522fe98e599.1469880045.git.lucien.xin@gmail.com> <20160730132535.GE2967@localhost.localdomain> <20160730.220803.1463117783142907557.davem@davemloft.net> In-Reply-To: <20160730.220803.1463117783142907557.davem@davemloft.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: David Miller Cc: lucien.xin@gmail.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, vyasevich@gmail.com, daniel@iogearbox.net On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 10:08:03PM -0700, David Miller wrote: > From: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2016 10:25:35 -0300 > > > On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 08:00:45PM +0800, Xin Long wrote: > >> Prior to this patch, sctp defined TCP_CLOSING as SCTP_SS_CLOSING. > >> TCP_CLOSING is such a special sk state in TCP that inet common codes > >> even exclude it. > >> > >> For instance, inet_accept thinks the accept sk's state never be > >> TCP_CLOSING, or it will give a WARN_ON. TCP works well with that > >> while SCTP may trigger the call trace, as CLOSING state in SCTP > >> has different meaning from TCP. > >> > >> This fix is to change to use TCP_CLOSE_WAIT as SCTP_SS_CLOSING, > >> instead of TCP_CLOSING. Some side-effects could be expected, > >> regardless of not being used before. inet_accept will accept it > >> now. > >> > >> I did all the func_tests in lksctp-tools and ran sctp codnomicon > >> fuzzer tests against this patch, no regression or failure found. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Xin Long > > > > I don't think this is -net material. It's a one line change but a core > > one. > > Dave please consider it for net-next instead. > > Though, Xin you may need to re-post later.. > > > > Acked-by: Marcelo Ricardo Leitner > > But, the commit log message says that inet_accept() will generate > a WARN_ON() call trace without this change. That makes it sound > like it's 'net' material to me. > That's right, it will fix a WARN_ON(). I just feel that this change is too intrusive for -net. But if you think it's okay, okay then. Marcelo