| Message ID | 1290768477.2855.97.camel@edumazet-laptop |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
--- On Fri, 26/11/10, Eric Dumazet <eric.dumazet@gmail.com> wrote: > > Problem is your patch is not applicable to current tree. > > In order to submit it to stable team, you should first post > a patch for > next/current kernel (net-next-2.6 tree). > Thanks, Erik. I'd made the patch against 2.6.36.1 which is the latest stable kernel per kernel.org. I thought that was the right kernel version to make a patch against. I do not use git. Shall I make a patch against linux-next as it appears in kernel.org. > David will decide if its net-2.6 material or not. > > You could add in your changelog the problem comes from > commit > a9d8f9110d7e953c (inet: Allowing more than 64k connections > and heavily > optimize bind(0)), included in 2.6.30, to ease stable team > work. > > On current tree your patch would be : > > diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c > b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c > index 1b344f3..3c0369a 100644 > --- a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c > +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c > @@ -133,8 +133,7 @@ int __inet_inherit_port(struct sock > *sk, struct sock *child) > > } > } > } > - sk_add_bind_node(child, > &tb->owners); > - inet_csk(child)->icsk_bind_hash = > tb; > + inet_bind_hash(child, tb, port); > spin_unlock(&head->lock); > > return 0; > > > Thanks, Tomar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hi. On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 11:47:57AM +0100, Eric Dumazet (eric.dumazet@gmail.com) wrote: > > ok, so I printed hashinfo->bsockets and tb->num_owners inside > > __inet_put_port() and I could see both of them to be -ve. All we need > > to do is establish and terminate a connection. I used netcat for that. > > > > The only place 'bsockets' and 'num_owners' are used is > > inet_csk_get_port() and the only effect that they might have is on the > > choice of the port to be used for binding. > > 'bsockets' is used as a hint to stop searching for a free port (and > > instead share an already used port) when we know that all the ports > > could be used up. > > 'num_owners' is used to find the port which is least shared (to > > balance the 'owners' list) in case we need to share a port. > > > > Since both of these are used as optimizations (in the bind path), they > > do not affect correctness and hence the code works even with these > > values not being updated correctly. > > Hmm, thanks for clarification. > > bsockets / mnum_owners iscount is indeed an 'optimization' problem. > > Problem is your patch is not applicable to current tree. > > In order to submit it to stable team, you should first post a patch for > next/current kernel (net-next-2.6 tree). > > David will decide if its net-2.6 material or not. > > You could add in your changelog the problem comes from commit > a9d8f9110d7e953c (inet: Allowing more than 64k connections and heavily > optimize bind(0)), included in 2.6.30, to ease stable team work. Frankly I did not find how those optimizations made a bug as well as what is this bug about from given description, but I'm glad it is resolved now :)
--- On Fri, 26/11/10, Evgeniy Polyakov <zbr@ioremap.net> wrote: > Frankly I did not find how those optimizations made a bug > as well as > what is this bug about from given description, but I'm glad > it is resolved now :) > I'm not sure of what all went into the "optimization" patch, but the bug is not due to the optimization per-se. As my original post says, it is due to the 'bsockets' and 'num_owners' not being incremented inside __inet_inherit_port(), where it should have been, as __inet_put_port() decrements them on port release, which causes the imbalance. Thanks, Tomar -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 03:20:31AM -0800, Nagendra Tomar (tomer_iisc@yahoo.com) wrote: > > Frankly I did not find how those optimizations made a bug > > as well as > > what is this bug about from given description, but I'm glad > > it is resolved now :) > > > > I'm not sure of what all went into the "optimization" patch, but the bug is not due to the optimization per-se. As my original post says, it is due to the 'bsockets' and 'num_owners' not being incremented inside __inet_inherit_port(), where it should have been, as __inet_put_port() decrements them on port release, which causes the imbalance. Argh, I see, thanks a lot for explanation!
diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c index 1b344f3..3c0369a 100644 --- a/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_hashtables.c @@ -133,8 +133,7 @@ int __inet_inherit_port(struct sock *sk, struct sock *child) } } } - sk_add_bind_node(child, &tb->owners); - inet_csk(child)->icsk_bind_hash = tb; + inet_bind_hash(child, tb, port); spin_unlock(&head->lock); return 0;