On Mon, May 15, 2017 at 02:32:07PM +0200, Martin Pieuchot wrote:
> 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.
OK bluhm@
>
> 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 */
