On Tue, Aug 8, 2017 at 10:13 PM, Gao Feng <gfree.w...@vip.163.com> wrote:
> Maybe I didn't show my explanation clearly.
> I think it won't happen as I mentioned in the last email.
> Because the pptp_release invokes the synchronize_rcu to make sure it, and 
> actually there is no one which would invoke del_chan except pptp_release.
> It is guaranteed by that the pptp_release doesn't put the sock refcnt until 
> complete all cleanup include marking sk_state as PPPOX_DEAD.
> In other words, even though the pptp_release is not the last user of this 
> sock, the other one wouldn't invoke del_chan in pptp_sock_destruct.
> Because the condition "!(sk->sk_state & PPPOX_DEAD)" must be false.

Only if sock->sk is always non-NULL for pptp_release(), which
is what I am not sure. If you look at other ->release(), similar checks
are there too, so not just for pptp.

> As summary, the del_chan and pppox_unbind_sock in pptp_sock_destruct are 
> unnecessary.
> And it even brings confusing.

Sorry, I can't draw any conclusion for this.

Reply via email to