Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Apr 2003 18:41:56 -0700 | From | Max Krasnyansky <> | Subject | Re: [BK ] new module infrastructure for net_proto_family |
| |
At 04:30 PM 4/23/2003, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Max Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com> > Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:51:11 -0700 > > >This is just the first part, DaveM already merged the second part, > >that deals with struct sock > > That's exactly what surprised me. He rejected complete patch and > accepted something incomplete and broken. > >No, it was not broken, because he told me completely where he >was going with his changes. Of course it was and still is. New socket is allocated without incrementing modules ref count in sys_accept().
>He was building infrastructure piece by piece, and that's always an acceptable >way to do things as long as it is explained where one is going with the changes. Oh, I see. And I just sent a patch without any explanation. Ok. (you might want to reread our original discussion again).
>Your stuff was unacceptable from the start because you didn't put >the ->owner into the protocol ops. But you didn't tell me that. You just said that it's "an ugly hack" without giving any other feedback.
->owner field in protocol ops did come up during discussion (I think Rusty brought that up) and I explained why it shouldn't be there. But again there was no feed back from you. You just ignored that thread at some point.
btw I still don't see ->owner in protocol ops. I read archives of netdev. You guys didn't even talk about that.
Anyway it's not important who said what now. You chose to ignore stuff that I did, fine. What about this though
>>struct sock *sk_alloc(int family, int priority, int zero_it, kmem_cache_t *slab) >>{ >>- struct sock *sk; >>- >>+ struct sock *sk = NULL; >>+ >>+ if (!net_family_get(family)) >>+ goto out; >Ok. This is wrong. Which should be clear from reading the thread that I mentioned. >Owner of the net_proto_family is not necessarily the owner of the 'struct sock'. >Example: af_inet module registers net_proto_family but udp module owns the socket. >(not that IPv4 code is modular but just an example). Another example would be Bluetooth. >We have Bluetooth core that registers Bluetooth proto_family and several modules >that handle specific protocols (l2cap, rfcomm, etc). > >Also net_proto_family has pretty much nothing to do with the struct sock. The only reason >we would want to hold reference to the module is if the module has replaced default >callbacks (i.e. sk->data_ready(), etc). >So my point is we need sk->owner field. > >I'd also prefer to see sock->owner which gives more flexibility (i.e. net_proto_family can >be unregistered while struct socket still exist, etc). >net_family_get/put() makes no sense net_proto_family has only one function npf->create() >which is referenced only from net/socket.c. struct socket should inherit owner field from >struct net_proto_family by default but protocol should be able to assign ownership to a >different module if it needs to.
Max
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |