On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 17:06 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> I pushed them in by hand, they should really be there now.
>
> Thanks for letting me know.
Thanks David
Further tests show two additional missing local_bh_disable() protections
around percpu_counter_dec() and one
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Wed, 04 May 2016 11:22:11 -0700
> On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 00:54 -0400, David Miller wrote:
>> From: Eric Dumazet
>> Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 17:10:50 -0700
>>
>> > From: Eric Dumazet
>> >
>> >
On Wed, 2016-05-04 at 00:54 -0400, David Miller wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet
> Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 17:10:50 -0700
>
> > From: Eric Dumazet
> >
> > __inet_twsk_hashdance() might be called from process context,
> > better block BH before acquiring
From: Eric Dumazet
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 17:10:50 -0700
> From: Eric Dumazet
>
> __inet_twsk_hashdance() might be called from process context,
> better block BH before acquiring bind hash and established locks
>
> Fixes: c10d9310edf5 ("tcp: do not
From: Eric Dumazet
__inet_twsk_hashdance() might be called from process context,
better block BH before acquiring bind hash and established locks
Fixes: c10d9310edf5 ("tcp: do not assume TCP code is non preemptible")
Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet
---