On 08/20/2014 05:31 AM, Zhu Yanjun wrote:
> Since the transport has always been in state SCTP_UNCONFIRMED, it
> therefore wasn't active before and hasn't been used before, and it
> always has been, so it is unnecessary to bug the user with a
> notification.
>
> Reported-by: Deepak Khandelwal <khandelwal.deepak.1...@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasev...@gmail.com>
> Suggested-by: Michael Tuexen <tue...@fh-muenster.de>
> Suggested-by: Daniel Borkmann <dbork...@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Zhu Yanjun <yanjun....@windriver.com>
Acked-by: Vlad Yasevich <vyasev...@gmail.com>
Thanks
-vlad
> ---
> net/sctp/associola.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/net/sctp/associola.c b/net/sctp/associola.c
> index 9de23a2..2e23f6b 100644
> --- a/net/sctp/associola.c
> +++ b/net/sctp/associola.c
> @@ -813,6 +813,7 @@ void sctp_assoc_control_transport(struct sctp_association
> *asoc,
> else {
> dst_release(transport->dst);
> transport->dst = NULL;
> + ulp_notify = false;
> }
>
> spc_state = SCTP_ADDR_UNREACHABLE;
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
