From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jarek Poplawski Subject: Re: [PATCH] net-next: Fix __inet_inherit_port() to correctly increment bsockets and num_owners Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 12:39:09 +0000 Message-ID: <20101129123909.GA9286@ff.dom.local> References: <20101128230041.GA16269@ioremap.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Nagendra Tomar , netdev@vger.kernel.org, davem@davemloft.net, Eric Dumazet To: Evgeniy Polyakov Return-path: Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:42705 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753442Ab0K2MjL (ORCPT ); Mon, 29 Nov 2010 07:39:11 -0500 Received: by fxm8 with SMTP id 8so31922fxm.19 for ; Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:39:10 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20101128230041.GA16269@ioremap.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 2010-11-29 00:00, Evgeniy Polyakov wrote: > 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. Probably I miss something, but since bsockets is increased by each passive connection now, it seems it will trigger "hash table is full" too early? Jarek P.