Message ID | 1513261336-5209-1-git-send-email-cugyly@163.com |
---|---|
State | Changes Requested, archived |
Delegated to: | David Miller |
Headers | show |
Series | [net-next] net: tap: fix POLLOUT condition in tap_poll() | expand |
From: yuan linyu <cugyly@163.com> Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2017 22:22:16 +0800 > From: yuan linyu <Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn> > > from logical view, if sock_writeable(&q->sk) return false, > original second condition will return false too, > change it and make second condition can return true. > > Signed-off-by: yuan linyu <Linyu.Yuan@alcatel-sbell.com.cn> ... > @@ -587,8 +587,7 @@ static unsigned int tap_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait) > mask |= POLLIN | POLLRDNORM; > > if (sock_writeable(&q->sk) || > - (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &q->sock.flags) && > - sock_writeable(&q->sk))) > + !test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &q->sock.flags)) > mask |= POLLOUT | POLLWRNORM; > > out: > -- > 2.7.4 Hmmm, this same exact test also exists in tun_chr_poll(). The second condition probably never trigger, because of the reasons you have listed. The only side effect is that it will set the ASYNC_NOSPACE bit in the socket flags. Logically, it seems we can remove the second condition altogether. But I wonder what might break if we stop trying to set that socket flags bit in this situation. Overall, I'm not sure this change is safe at all.
diff --git a/drivers/net/tap.c b/drivers/net/tap.c index 0a886fda..72212bf 100644 --- a/drivers/net/tap.c +++ b/drivers/net/tap.c @@ -587,8 +587,7 @@ static unsigned int tap_poll(struct file *file, poll_table *wait) mask |= POLLIN | POLLRDNORM; if (sock_writeable(&q->sk) || - (!test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &q->sock.flags) && - sock_writeable(&q->sk))) + !test_and_set_bit(SOCKWQ_ASYNC_NOSPACE, &q->sock.flags)) mask |= POLLOUT | POLLWRNORM; out: