From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: William Allen Simpson Subject: Re: [PATCH] TCPCT+1: initial SYN exchange with SYNACK data Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 03:45:51 -0400 Message-ID: <4AC9A42F.7010302@gmail.com> References: <4AC79905.1030904@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: netdev@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mail-yw0-f173.google.com ([209.85.211.173]:42589 "EHLO mail-yw0-f173.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758258AbZJEHqa (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Oct 2009 03:46:30 -0400 Received: by ywh3 with SMTP id 3so2710961ywh.22 for ; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 00:45:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4AC79905.1030904@gmail.com> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: As I'm new to Linux kernel development, this was based entirely on code previously reviewed (by Miller), as that seemed a good path for me to learn proper coding and style. Now that I'm trying to grok Linux locking functions for the next patch, I've noticed that setsockopt code uses lock_sock(), but getsockopt doesn't. In a preemptive kernel, or with SMP, isn't there a possibility that these socket values could be modified or destroyed at the same time? I'm especially concerned here, as there are kref blocks, and they could be left pointing into the weeds?