| To: | Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: [RFT] Re: Fw: Nasty Oops in 2.6.0-test6 bind/SO_REUSEADDR |
| From: | "David S. Miller" <davem@xxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:56:56 -0700 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, dmerillat@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <20031010154052.GA11366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| References: | <20031008133345.49f71991.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20031010023644.GA8365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031010032244.GB8365@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20031009211437.2cf87a4f.davem@xxxxxxxxxx> <20031010154052.GA11366@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | netdev-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx |
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 12:40:52 -0300 Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ipv6_rcv_saddr_equal, look at this: > > if (sk2->sk_family == AF_INET6 && > !ipv6_addr_cmp(&np->rcv_saddr, > (sk2->sk_state != TCP_TIME_WAIT ? > &inet6_sk(sk2)->rcv_saddr : > &tcptw_sk(sk)->tw_v6_rcv_saddr))) > ^^ > ^^ > shouldn't the tcp_tw_sk(sk) be tcp_tw_sk(sk2)? Yes. > And in this function we have the guard against it being a tcp_tw_bucket, but > not in all places... It does guard in this spot, that's why it is checking the sk_state value. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: [PATCH] Handle shared SKBs in VLAN receive code, David S. Miller |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: patches for PROC_FS=n (2.6.0-test7), Randy.Dunlap |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [RFT] Re: Fw: Nasty Oops in 2.6.0-test6 bind/SO_REUSEADDR, Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo |
| Next by Thread: | [PATCH] (resend) fix sock_raw behaviour, Jeroen Vreeken |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |