From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Dumazet Subject: Re: a problem tcp_v4_err() Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2010 19:12:58 +0100 Message-ID: <1289585578.3185.268.camel@edumazet-laptop> References: <20101111210341.31350.86916.stgit@paris.rdu.redhat.com> <00c201cb81eb$84e18160$8ea48420$@com> <1289578108.3083.95.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1289578532.3185.265.camel@edumazet-laptop> <20101112163543.GB122902@jupiter.n2.diac24.net> <4CDD7145.8070606@trash.net> <20101112175715.GB16544@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Patrick McHardy , David Lamparter , Eric Paris , Hua Zhong , netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, pekkas@netcore.fi, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, paul.moore@hp.com To: Alexey Kuznetsov Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20101112175715.GB16544@ms2.inr.ac.ru> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Le vendredi 12 novembre 2010 =C3=A0 20:57 +0300, Alexey Kuznetsov a =C3= =A9crit : > Hello! >=20 > I looked at tcp_v4_err() and found something strange. Quite non-trivi= al operations > are performed on unlocked sockets. It looks like at least this BUG_ON= (): >=20 > skb =3D tcp_write_queue_head(sk); > BUG_ON(!skb); >=20 > can be easily triggered. >=20 > Do I miss something? >=20 Hi Alexey ! I see socket is locked around line 368, bh_lock_sock(sk); /* If too many ICMPs get dropped on busy * servers this needs to be solved differently. */ if (sock_owned_by_user(sk)) NET_INC_STATS_BH(net, LINUX_MIB_LOCKDROPPEDICMPS); Hmm, maybe some goto is missing ;)