On Fri, May 29, 2020 at 09:09:22AM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 28/05/20(Thu) 15:27, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:26:39PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > > On 27/05/20(Wed) 11:54, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > > > pipex(4) is simultaneously protected by
On 28/05/20(Thu) 15:27, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:26:39PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > On 27/05/20(Wed) 11:54, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > > pipex(4) is simultaneously protected by KERNEL_LOCK() and NET_LOCK() and
> > > the last is not required. I guess to start
On Thu, May 28, 2020 at 12:26:39PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> On 27/05/20(Wed) 11:54, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> > pipex(4) is simultaneously protected by KERNEL_LOCK() and NET_LOCK() and
> > the last is not required. I guess to start remove NET_LOCK(). Diff below
> > drops NET_LOCK() in
On 27/05/20(Wed) 11:54, Vitaliy Makkoveev wrote:
> pipex(4) is simultaneously protected by KERNEL_LOCK() and NET_LOCK() and
> the last is not required. I guess to start remove NET_LOCK(). Diff below
> drops NET_LOCK() in pipex_ioctl() and underlaying routines. At least
> this helps to kill
pipex(4) is simultaneously protected by KERNEL_LOCK() and NET_LOCK() and
the last is not required. I guess to start remove NET_LOCK(). Diff below
drops NET_LOCK() in pipex_ioctl() and underlaying routines. At least
this helps to kill unlock/lock mess in pppx_add_session() and
pppx_if_destroy().