From: Raghu Angadi <raghuangadi@yahoo.com>
To: kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
Cc: raghuangadi@yahoo.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Fw: memory corruption in tcp bind hash buckets on SMP?
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 12:05:21 -0800 (PST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020227200521.60597.qmail@web12302.mail.yahoo.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20020227194620.69620.qmail@web12308.mail.yahoo.com>
inverted order of insertion into the lists in tw_hashdance() is probably
cleaner fix than inverted order of removal.. (that is.. if you dont like "if
(tb) put();" or double refcnting :-)
--- Raghu Angadi <raghuangadi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> --- kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru wrote:
> > Hello!
> >
> > > I think his analysis is alright but he patch is questionable.
> >
> > Yes. "if (tb) tcp_tw_put(tw)" cannot be right, no doubts.
>
> In timewait_kill(), tb is set only _after_ it has been removed from the
> established (if it exist there). In _hashdance() tw is inserted into
> established _before_ it is inserted into bindhash. So the above is one way
> of
> saying do tw_put() when it has been deleted from _both_ the lists.
> Also note that patch removes "if (!tw->pprev) return;" thingy. Infact this
> return sort of implied you never thought tw could be deleted from ehash and
> not from bind hash.
>
> > Seems, it is enough to remove from bind hash _before_ established.
> >
> > The idea was that bind hash is pure slave of another state, so that
> > it need not refcounting at all. Note that adding the second increment
> > does not help: when we verify that leakage (the situation, when
> > bucket is in bind hash, but has no timer running) is impossible
> > we immediately arrive to elimination of the refcount.
> >
> > Raghu, could you check the variant with inverted order of removal?
> > Do you see holes? From my side... I need to think more. :-)
>
> Just the inteverted order of removal will fix _this_ perticular case.
> But we still end up doing tw_put() in timewait_kill() even though tw is
> still
> in the bind list (just got inserted on the other processor). This seems
> conceptually incorrect or confusing. The refcnt increment in tw_hashdance()
> is for these two lists and tw_put() in timewait_kill() should correspond to
> the deletion from _both_ the lists.
>
> If you want to avoid timewait_kill() getting called twice altogether.. then
> its a different issue.
>
> Raghu.
>
> > Alexey
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
> http://greetings.yahoo.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-02-27 20:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20020226.231934.116353439.davem@redhat.com>
2002-02-27 19:04 ` kuznet
2002-02-27 19:46 ` Raghu Angadi
2002-02-27 20:05 ` Raghu Angadi [this message]
2002-02-27 20:12 ` kuznet
2002-02-27 20:31 ` Raghu Angadi
2002-03-01 19:07 ` kuznet
2002-03-04 20:48 ` Raghu Angadi
2002-03-04 23:26 ` David S. Miller
2002-03-05 0:54 ` Raghu Angadi
2002-03-05 4:30 ` David S. Miller
2002-02-27 20:08 ` Fw: " kuznet
2002-02-27 20:26 ` Raghu Angadi
2002-02-28 5:53 ` Raghu Angadi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020227200521.60597.qmail@web12302.mail.yahoo.com \
--to=raghuangadi@yahoo.com \
--cc=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®