On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 02:22:26PM +0200, Patrick McHardy wrote: > Simon Horman wrote: > > A pointed out by Shin Hong, IPVS doesn't always use atomic operations > > in an atomic manner. While this seems unlikely to be manifest in > > strange behaviour, it seems appropriate to clean this up. > > > > Cc: 홍신 shin hong <hongshin@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Simon Horman <horms@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Applied, thanks. > > > if (af == AF_INET && > > (ip_vs_sync_state & IP_VS_STATE_MASTER) && > > (((cp->protocol != IPPROTO_TCP || > > cp->state == IP_VS_TCP_S_ESTABLISHED) && > > - (atomic_read(&cp->in_pkts) % sysctl_ip_vs_sync_threshold[1] > > + (pkts % sysctl_ip_vs_sync_threshold[1] > > It seems that proc_do_sync_threshold() should check whether this value > is zero. The current checks also look racy since incorrect values are > first updated, then overwritten again. Thanks, I'll look into that. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netfilter-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
