From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Evgeniy Polyakov Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly increment bsockets and num_owners Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 02:00:41 +0300 Message-ID: <20101128230041.GA16269@ioremap.net> References: <844781.48196.qm@web53701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, Eric Dumazet To: Nagendra Tomar Return-path: Received: from tservice.ru ([195.178.208.66]:35825 "EHLO tservice.net.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752097Ab0K1XAo (ORCPT ); Sun, 28 Nov 2010 18:00:44 -0500 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <844781.48196.qm@web53701.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi. On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 04:26:27PM -0800, Nagendra Tomar (tomer_iisc@yahoo.com) wrote: > inet sockets corresponding to passive connections are added to the bind hash > using ___inet_inherit_port(). These sockets are later removed from the bind > hash using __inet_put_port(). These two functions are not exactly symmetrical. > __inet_put_port() decrements hashinfo->bsockets and tb->num_owners, whereas > ___inet_inherit_port() does not increment them. This results in both of these > going to -ve values. > > This patch fixes this by calling inet_bind_hash() from ___inet_inherit_port(), > which does the right thing. > > 'bsockets' and 'num_owners' were introduced by commit a9d8f9110d7e953c > (inet: Allowing more than 64k connections and heavily optimize bind(0)) Yup, things changed from that simple patch a lot. Thanks for fixing it up. Ack. -- Evgeniy Polyakov