summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/MAINTAINERS
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>2008-06-12 16:31:35 -0700
committerDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>2008-06-12 16:34:35 -0700
commitec0a196626bd12e0ba108d7daa6d95a4fb25c2c5 (patch)
tree68d9c2923765e12853368e8edb27b241142e0c48 /MAINTAINERS
parentf23d60de719e639690b2dc5c2d0e4243ff614b7a (diff)
tcp: Revert 'process defer accept as established' changes.
This reverts two changesets, ec3c0982a2dd1e671bad8e9d26c28dcba0039d87 ("[TCP]: TCP_DEFER_ACCEPT updates - process as established") and the follow-on bug fix 9ae27e0adbf471c7a6b80102e38e1d5a346b3b38 ("tcp: Fix slab corruption with ipv6 and tcp6fuzz"). This change causes several problems, first reported by Ingo Molnar as a distcc-over-loopback regression where connections were getting stuck. Ilpo Järvinen first spotted the locking problems. The new function added by this code, tcp_defer_accept_check(), only has the child socket locked, yet it is modifying state of the parent listening socket. Fixing that is non-trivial at best, because we can't simply just grab the parent listening socket lock at this point, because it would create an ABBA deadlock. The normal ordering is parent listening socket --> child socket, but this code path would require the reverse lock ordering. Next is a problem noticed by Vitaliy Gusev, he noted: ---------------------------------------- >--- a/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c >+++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_timer.c >@@ -481,6 +481,11 @@ static void tcp_keepalive_timer (unsigned long data) > goto death; > } > >+ if (tp->defer_tcp_accept.request && sk->sk_state == TCP_ESTABLISHED) { >+ tcp_send_active_reset(sk, GFP_ATOMIC); >+ goto death; Here socket sk is not attached to listening socket's request queue. tcp_done() will not call inet_csk_destroy_sock() (and tcp_v4_destroy_sock() which should release this sk) as socket is not DEAD. Therefore socket sk will be lost for freeing. ---------------------------------------- Finally, Alexey Kuznetsov argues that there might not even be any real value or advantage to these new semantics even if we fix all of the bugs: ---------------------------------------- Hiding from accept() sockets with only out-of-order data only is the only thing which is impossible with old approach. Is this really so valuable? My opinion: no, this is nothing but a new loophole to consume memory without control. ---------------------------------------- So revert this thing for now. Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
Diffstat (limited to 'MAINTAINERS')
0 files changed, 0 insertions, 0 deletions