Hello Stephen,
On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 9:22 AM Stephen Rothwell <sfr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> Today's linux-next merge of the net-next tree got a conflict in:
>
> net/ipv4/tcp.c
>
> between commit:
>
> bac76cf89816 ("tcp: fix forever orphan socket caused by tcp_abort")
>
> from the net tree and commit:
>
> edefba66d929 ("tcp: rstreason: introduce SK_RST_REASON_TCP_STATE for active reset")
>
> from the net-next tree.
>
> I fixed it up (see below) and can carry the fix as necessary. This
Thanks for handling this. I noticed that the moment Xueming proposed the patch.
> is now fixed as far as linux-next is concerned, but any non trivial
> conflicts should be mentioned to your upstream maintainer when your tree
> is submitted for merging. You may also want to consider cooperating
> with the maintainer of the conflicting tree to minimise any particularly
> complex conflicts.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Stephen Rothwell
>
> diff --cc net/ipv4/tcp.c
> index 831a18dc7aa6,8514257f4ecd..000000000000
> --- a/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp.c
> @@@ -4653,10 -4649,12 +4656,10 @@@ int tcp_abort(struct sock *sk, int err
> local_bh_disable();
> bh_lock_sock(sk);
>
> - if (!sock_flag(sk, SOCK_DEAD)) {
> - if (tcp_need_reset(sk->sk_state))
> - tcp_send_active_reset(sk, GFP_ATOMIC,
> - SK_RST_REASON_TCP_STATE);
> - tcp_done_with_error(sk, err);
> - }
> + if (tcp_need_reset(sk->sk_state))
> + tcp_send_active_reset(sk, GFP_ATOMIC,
> - SK_RST_REASON_NOT_SPECIFIED);
> ++ SK_RST_REASON_TCP_STATE);
"++"?
Thanks. The change of reset reason looks good to me :)
> + tcp_done_with_error(sk, err);
>
> bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> local_bh_enable();
