From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paul Moore Subject: Re: [PATCH] tcp: assign the sock correctly to an outgoing SYNACK packet Date: Mon, 08 Apr 2013 14:26:02 -0400 Message-ID: <10426929.HS2uObfqRU@sifl> References: <20130408154519.18177.57709.stgit@localhost> <1725553.maWFXblPLa@sifl> <1365445303.3887.33.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, mvadkert@redhat.com To: Eric Dumazet , David Miller Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29713 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S934855Ab3DHS0F (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Apr 2013 14:26:05 -0400 In-Reply-To: <1365445303.3887.33.camel@edumazet-glaptop> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Monday, April 08, 2013 11:21:43 AM Eric Dumazet wrote: > On Mon, 2013-04-08 at 14:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > It seems a bit fragile to me, perhaps even hacky, but in some ways I guess > > it isn't anymore fragile than relying on skb->sk - as this problem > > demonstrates. My other concern is that adding this hook *correctly* is > > likely to touch a lot of files and may be a bit much so late in the 3.9 > > cycle, Dave, what say you? > > I don't get it, 90ba9b1986b5ac4b2d18 was in 3.6, why do you care of > 3.9 ? I wasn't made aware of the particular bug until just recently. When I see a regression I generally try to get it fixed as soon as possible. > I am preparing a fix right now. Not a revert, thank you. I guess we'll have to wait and see then; the more I think about the new hook you proposed the less enthused I am about it. I'm still curious to hear what Dave has to say on this. -- paul moore security and virtualization @ redhat