Re: [RFC] nasty corner case in unix_dgram_sendmsg()

[Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>]

On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 03:31:32PM +0000, Rainer Weikusat wrote:
> Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> writes:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 06:28:17AM +0000, Al Viro wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> 
> >> 	* if after relocking we see that unix_peer(sk) now
> >> is equal to other, we arrange for wakeup forwarding from other's
> >> peer_wait *and* if that has (likely) succeeded we fail with -EAGAIN.
> >> Huh?
> 
> This returns 1 if sending isn't possible at the moment, ie, if the
> process which tries to send has to wait.

Except that in _this_ case we won't be waiting at all - we'll just
return -EAGAIN (as one could expect, what with no timeout given/left).
So what's the point of forwarding wakeups?  IOW, what is it that we
expect to be waiting on sk_sleep(sk)?  Note that it won't be this
call of sendmsg(2) (it'll bugger off without any further waiting).
It won't be subsequent calls of sendmsg(2) either - they either
sleep on skb allocation (which has nothing to do with destination)
_or_ they sleep directly on other->peer_wait.  And poll(), while it
will be sleeping on sk_sleep(sk), will make sure to set the forwarding 
up.

I understand what the unix_dgram_peer_wake_me() is doing; I understand
what unix_dgram_poll() is using it for.  What I do not understand is
what's the point of doing that in unix_dgram_sendmsg()...