On 12/21/18, Deepa Dinamani deepa.kernel@gmail.com wrote:
diff --git a/include/net/sock.h b/include/net/sock.h index fe58aec00d09..2cb641606533 100644 --- a/include/net/sock.h +++ b/include/net/sock.h @@ -2311,8 +2313,11 @@ sock_recv_timestamp(struct msghdr *msg, struct sock *sk, struct sk_buff *skb) (hwtstamps->hwtstamp && (sk->sk_tsflags & SOF_TIMESTAMPING_RAW_HARDWARE))) __sock_recv_timestamp(msg, sk, skb);
- else
else {
write_seqlock(&sk->sk_stamp_seq);sk->sk_stamp = kt;
write_sequnlock(&sk->sk_stamp_seq);}
if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_WIFI_STATUS) && skb->wifi_acked_valid) __sock_recv_wifi_status(msg, sk, skb);
@@ -2332,10 +2337,15 @@ static inline void sock_recv_ts_and_drops(struct msghdr *msg, struct sock *sk,
if (sk->sk_flags & FLAGS_TS_OR_DROPS || sk->sk_tsflags & TSFLAGS_ANY) __sock_recv_ts_and_drops(msg, sk, skb);
- else if (unlikely(sock_flag(sk, SOCK_TIMESTAMP)))
- else if (unlikely(sock_flag(sk, SOCK_TIMESTAMP))) {
write_seqlock(&sk->sk_stamp_seq);
- else if (unlikely(sk->sk_stamp == SK_DEFAULT_STAMP))
write_sequnlock(&sk->sk_stamp_seq);- } else if (unlikely(sk->sk_stamp == SK_DEFAULT_STAMP)) {
write_seqlock(&sk->sk_stamp_seq);write_sequnlock(&sk->sk_stamp_seq);- }
}
Hi Deepa,
Thanks a lot for the follow-up to our earlier discussion here!
Are we actually worried about concurrent writers here? I thought the only problem was a race between writer and reader, which would mean that we could solve it using only a seqcount_t which is cheaper to update than a seqlock_t.
Arnd