> > > > And is anyone working on a better patch?
> > >
> > > I have no idea.
> > >
> > > > Those patches aren't "bad" in the correctness sense. So IMO any one
> > > > of them is better, than having that bug in there.
> > >
> > > You're adding a very serious performance regression, which is
> > > about as bad as the bug itself.
> >
> > No, correctness always trumps performance.
>
> To a point. There is no black and white in this world.
>
> > Lost packets on an AF_UNIX socket are _unexceptable_, and this is
> > definitely not a theoretical problem.
>
> A lot of people will consider having all of their AF_UNIX sockets on
> their 64 cpu system just stop when garbage collection runs to be
> unacceptable as well.
Garbage collection only ever happens, if the app is sending AF_UNIX
sockets over AF_UNIX sockets. Which is a rather rare case. And which
is basically why this bug went unnoticed for so long.
So my second patch only affects the performance of _exactly_ those
apps which might well be bitten by the bug itself.
> Secondarily, this bug has been around for years and nobody noticed.
> The world will not explode if this bug takes a few more days or
> even a week to work out. Let's do it right instead of ramming
> arbitrary turds into the kernel.
Fine, but just wishing a bug to get fixed won't accomplish anything.
I've spent a fair amount of time debugging this thing, and I'm out of
ideas. Really. So unless somebody steps up to look at this, it won't
_ever_ get fixed.
Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
