From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vlad Yasevich Subject: Re: [PATCH] sctp: Add RCU protection to assoc->transport_addr_list Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 13:57:57 -0500 Message-ID: <50C0EAB5.3050303@gmail.com> References: <16453bea94a6fc43d657139dff2ce0b5924e2a1f.1354817574.git.tgraf@suug.ch> <50C0E585.1080701@gmail.com> <20121206184433.GE16122@casper.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: linux-sctp@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, Neil Horman To: Thomas Graf Return-path: Received: from mail-ie0-f171.google.com ([209.85.223.171]:49642 "EHLO mail-ie0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1946465Ab2LFS6I (ORCPT ); Thu, 6 Dec 2012 13:58:08 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20121206184433.GE16122@casper.infradead.org> Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/06/2012 01:44 PM, Thomas Graf wrote: > On 12/06/12 at 01:35pm, Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> We may want to mark transports as dead sooner. Probably right about >> the time we pull them off the list. > > We mark it dead in sctp_transport_free() which is called at the > end of sctp_assoc_rm_peer(). Do you want to mark it dead at the > beginning of sctp_assoc_rm_peer() as well? (We still need to > mark in sctp_transport_free() anyway). Crud.. sctp_transport_free() is called directly in places... Hmm... the one in sctp_association_free() may need to be list_del_rcu()... Ok, we can leave the dead handling the way it is.. -vlad > >> When displaying, we may want to >> look at transport->dead, and skip them. It will reduce the probability >> that we would be looking at a transport that's about to go away. > > Agreed. >