From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pavel Emelyanov Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] Lost locking in fl6_sock_lookup Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 16:22:49 +0400 Message-ID: <47175019.4090004@openvz.org> References: <47174950.6060409@openvz.org> <20071018.051647.23015283.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, devel@openvz.org To: David Miller Return-path: Received: from sacred.ru ([62.205.161.221]:59284 "EHLO sacred.ru" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756082AbXJRMW5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:22:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20071018.051647.23015283.davem@davemloft.net> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org David Miller wrote: > From: Pavel Emelyanov > Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 15:53:52 +0400 > >> This routine scans the ipv6_fl_list whose update is >> protected with the socket lock and the ip6_sk_fl_lock. >> >> Since the socket lock is not taken in the lookup, use >> the other one. >> >> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov > > Applied. > > But I notice that I was wrong in my email, we don't > hold the socket lock here. > > What prevents an unlink from the socket's list > and thus a reference count of zero occurring for > a brief moment? Oops. You're right here :( I looked at the ip6_fl_lock and messed it with the ip6_sk_fl_lock. Should I resend the whole patch, or just make an incremental one? Thanks, Pavel