Re: problem in tcp_v4_synq_add ?

Paul Wagland
2004-03-10T09:59:00Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 561 bytes --]

On Mar 9, 2004, at 20:30, David S. Miller wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:27:41 +0200
> "Viorel Canja, Softwin" <vcanja@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't "write_lock(&tp->syn_wait_lock);" be moved before
>> "req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[h];" to avoid a race condition ?
>
> Nope, the listening socket's socket lock is held, and all things that
> add members to these hash chains hold that lock.

Is that the same as saying that the write_lock() is not needed at all?
Since it is already guaranteed to be protected with a different lock?

Cheers,
Paul

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 186 bytes --]