Re: problem in tcp_v4_synq_add ?

From: Paul Wagland
Date: Wed Mar 10 2004 - 05:01:44 EST

On Mar 9, 2004, at 20:30, David S. Miller wrote:

On Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:27:41 +0200
"Viorel Canja, Softwin" <vcanja@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Shouldn't "write_lock(&tp->syn_wait_lock);" be moved before
"req->dl_next = lopt->syn_table[h];" to avoid a race condition ?

Nope, the listening socket's socket lock is held, and all things that
add members to these hash chains hold that lock.

Is that the same as saying that the write_lock() is not needed at all? Since it is already guaranteed to be protected with a different lock?


Attachment: PGP.sig
Description: This is a digitally signed message part