On Tue, 16 Aug 2022 17:43:19 -0700 Martin KaFai Lau wrote: > > I like your version because it documents what the lock protecting this > > field is. > > > > In fact should we also add && sock_owned_by_user(). Martin, WDYT? Would > > that work for reuseport? Jakub S is fixing l2tp to hold the socket lock > > while setting this field, yet most places take the callback lock... > > It needs to take a closer look at where the lock_sock() has already > been acquired and also need to consider the lock ordering with reuseport_lock. > It probably should work but may need a separate patch to discuss those > considerations ? Right, the users of the field with a bit allocated protect the writes with the callback lock, so we can hard code the check against the callback lock for now and revisit later if needed.
