From 781bf13d4f3b033002f7f6728ac0b0d1ebe8f176 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 16:19:43 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] mptcp: remove unneeded check on first subflow

Currently we explicitly check for the first subflow being
NULL in a couple of places, even if we don't need any
special actions in such scenario.

Just drop the unneeded checks, to avoid confusion.

Signed-off-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Mat Martineau <mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
---
 net/mptcp/options.c  | 2 +-
 net/mptcp/protocol.c | 2 +-
 2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/mptcp/options.c b/net/mptcp/options.c
index 69cafaacc31b..68361d28dc67 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/options.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/options.c
@@ -952,7 +952,7 @@ bool mptcp_update_rcv_data_fin(struct mptcp_sock *msk, u64 data_fin_seq, bool us
 	 * should match. If they mismatch, the peer is misbehaving and
 	 * we will prefer the most recent information.
 	 */
-	if (READ_ONCE(msk->rcv_data_fin) || !READ_ONCE(msk->first))
+	if (READ_ONCE(msk->rcv_data_fin))
 		return false;
 
 	WRITE_ONCE(msk->rcv_data_fin_seq,
diff --git a/net/mptcp/protocol.c b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
index 0c916d48cad8..531ee24aa827 100644
--- a/net/mptcp/protocol.c
+++ b/net/mptcp/protocol.c
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ static bool mptcp_check_data_fin(struct sock *sk)
 	u64 rcv_data_fin_seq;
 	bool ret = false;
 
-	if (__mptcp_check_fallback(msk) || !msk->first)
+	if (__mptcp_check_fallback(msk))
 		return ret;
 
 	/* Need to ack a DATA_FIN received from a peer while this side
-- 
GitLab