Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Thu, 28 Nov 2013 19:09:14 +0100 | From | Hannes Frederic Sowa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] inet: fix possible seqlock deadlocks |
| |
On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:51:22AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote: > From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > > In commit c9e9042994d3 ("ipv4: fix possible seqlock deadlock") I left > another places where IP_INC_STATS_BH() were improperly used. > > udp_sendmsg(), ping_v4_sendmsg() and tcp_v4_connect() are called from > process context, not from softirq context. > > This was detected by lockdep seqlock support. > > Reported-by: jongman heo <jongman.heo@samsung.com> > Fixes: 584bdf8cbdf6 ("[IPV4]: Fix "ipOutNoRoutes" counter error for TCP and UDP") > Fixes: c319b4d76b9e ("net: ipv4: add IPPROTO_ICMP socket kind") > Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com> > Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Just got home after getting distracted with other things today and the work is already done. Thanks, Eric! ;)
Exactly the spots I noticed this morning, so
Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@stressinduktion.org>
Should we do something about the naming? I find it rather dangerous because they look like the _bh lock postfixes but act exactly in the opposite?
Greetings,
Hannes
|  |