On 15/05/17(Mon) 13:35, Alexander Bluhm wrote:
> On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 01:20:02PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> > Here's the last of the splsoftnet(), is it ok if I replace it with a
> > KERNEL_LOCK() to make it clear this needs protection?
>
> I think it needs the socket lock. somove() is modifying the
> so_splicelen value. somove() calls soassertlocked().
Fine, updated diff below.
Index: kern/uipc_socket.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/sys/kern/uipc_socket.c,v
retrieving revision 1.183
diff -u -p -r1.183 uipc_socket.c
--- kern/uipc_socket.c 15 May 2017 12:26:00 -0000 1.183
+++ kern/uipc_socket.c 15 May 2017 12:31:39 -0000
@@ -1862,12 +1862,13 @@ sogetopt(struct socket *so, int level, i
case SO_SPLICE:
{
off_t len;
- int s = splsoftnet();
+ int s;
+ s = solock(so);
m->m_len = sizeof(off_t);
len = so->so_sp ? so->so_sp->ssp_len : 0;
memcpy(mtod(m, off_t *), &len, sizeof(off_t));
- splx(s);
+ sounlock(s);
break;
}
#endif /* SOCKET_SPLICE */
