1. 23 12月, 2006 1 次提交
  2. 14 12月, 2006 2 次提交
  3. 08 12月, 2006 2 次提交
  4. 03 12月, 2006 17 次提交
  5. 31 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  6. 19 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  7. 12 10月, 2006 1 次提交
  8. 30 9月, 2006 1 次提交
  9. 23 9月, 2006 4 次提交
  10. 21 9月, 2006 1 次提交
  11. 30 8月, 2006 1 次提交
  12. 23 8月, 2006 1 次提交
  13. 22 7月, 2006 2 次提交
  14. 01 7月, 2006 1 次提交
  15. 18 6月, 2006 2 次提交
  16. 20 5月, 2006 2 次提交
    • V
      [SCTP]: Allow linger to abort 1-N style sockets. · b89498a1
      Vladislav Yasevich 提交于
      Enable SO_LINGER functionality for 1-N style sockets. The socket API
      draft will be clarfied to allow for this functionality. The linger
      settings will apply to all associations on a given socket.
      Signed-off-by: NVladislav Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
      Signed-off-by: NSridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>
      b89498a1
    • V
      [SCTP]: A better solution to fix the race between sctp_peeloff() and · 61c9fed4
      Vladislav Yasevich 提交于
      sctp_rcv().
      
      The goal is to hold the ref on the association/endpoint throughout the
      state-machine process.  We accomplish like this:
      
        /* ref on the assoc/ep is taken during lookup */
      
        if owned_by_user(sk)
       	sctp_add_backlog(skb, sk);
        else
       	inqueue_push(skb, sk);
      
        /* drop the ref on the assoc/ep */
      
      However, in sctp_add_backlog() we take the ref on assoc/ep and hold it
      while the skb is on the backlog queue.  This allows us to get rid of the
      sock_hold/sock_put in the lookup routines.
      
      Now sctp_backlog_rcv() needs to account for potential association move.
      In the unlikely event that association moved, we need to retest if the
      new socket is locked by user.  If we don't this, we may have two packets
      racing up the stack toward the same socket and we can't deal with it.
      If the new socket is still locked, we'll just add the skb to its backlog
      continuing to hold the ref on the association.  This get's rid of the
      need to move packets from one backlog to another and it also safe in
      case new packets arrive on the same backlog queue.
      
      The last step, is to lock the new socket when we are moving the
      association to it.  This is needed in case any new packets arrive on
      the association when it moved.  We want these to go to the backlog since
      we would like to avoid the race between this new packet and a packet
      that may be sitting on the backlog queue of the old socket toward the
      same association.
      Signed-off-by: NVladislav Yasevich <vladislav.yasevich@hp.com>
      Signed-off-by: NSridhar Samudrala <sri@us.ibm.com>
      61c9fed4