Resending, I accidentally dropped the list. > Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 15:07 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote: >>> Eric Dumazet <eric.duma...@gmail.com> writes: >>> >>> > On Sun, 2015-09-20 at 05:18 -0400, Aaron Conole wrote: >>> >> From: Aaron Conole <aa...@bytheb.org> >>> >> >>> > >>> > I am wondering what this is expected to do, and how this code would >>> > possibly not trigger a crash. >>> Are you suspecting it should crash from a possible double-lock case? >>> On line 2125, there is an unconditional unlock, which should be >>> guaranteeing that there is no longer a condition to 'double lock' the >>> socket. >> >> Not at all. >> >> I am suggesting there is a big difference between >> >> unix_state_lock(&sk); >> >> and >> >> unix_state_lock(sk); >> >> Can you see it ?
Wow! That's an excellent catch, thank you! I did test the originally submitted patch, and got no oops, bug, panic, etc (I usually have panic_on_oops set to 1 when first testing new code). I guess I got very lucky, somehow. I'll change this, and make sure to retest. I will also try to enhance the python case attached to the bug to include a filepointer as well, and will repost a v3 when I have done this. Thanks, -Aaron -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
