| To: | george anzinger <george@xxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: System crash in tcp_fragment() |
| From: | Andi Kleen <ak@xxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 20 May 2002 22:29:37 +0200 |
| Cc: | netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, davem@xxxxxxxxxx, ak@xxxxxx, kuznet@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, pekkas@xxxxxxxxxx |
| In-reply-to: | <3CE95190.75C52E2D@mvista.com> |
| References: | <3CE95190.75C52E2D@mvista.com> |
| Sender: | owner-netdev@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.3.22.1i |
> Incase you can not see this, it appears that the addresses > of each skb are alright, so the assumption is that the skb > passed to tcp_fragment() has been unlinked while > tcp_fragment() was doing its thing. This implies a need for > locking at some higher level and we don't know enough about > the tcp code to divine where this might best be done. 2.4 TCP should in theory already have enough locking to prevent this (the socket lock that is aquired by timers and user context socket users) -Andi |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | System crash in tcp_fragment(), george anzinger |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | [PATCH] RFC save a few atomics in tcp_memory_schedule(), Nivedita Singhvi |
| Previous by Thread: | System crash in tcp_fragment(), george anzinger |
| Next by Thread: | Re: System crash in tcp_fragment(), george anzinger |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |