a reassembly queue state structure, don't update (receiver) sack
report.
- Similarly, if tcp_drain() is called, freeing up all items on the
reassembly queue, clean the sack report.
Found, Submitted by: Noritoshi Demizu <demizu at dd dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
Reviewed by: Mohan Srinivasan (mohans at yahoo-inc dot com),
Raja Mukerji (raja at moselle dot com).
(Fix for kern/78226).
Submitted by : Noritoshi Demizu <demizu at dd dot iij4u dot or dot jp>
Reviewed by : Mohan Srinivasan (mohans at yahoo-inc dot com),
Raja Mukerji (raja at moselle dot com).
The main reason for doing this is that the ELF dump handler expects
the thread list to be fixed while the dump header is generated, so an
upcall that occurs at the wrong time can lead to buffer overruns and
other Bad Things.
Another solution would be to grab sched_lock in the ELF dump handler,
but we might as well single-thread, since the process is about to die.
Furthermore, I think this should ensure that the register sets in the
core file are sequentially consistent.
when vrele() acquires the directory lock in the wrong order. Fix this
via the following changes:
- Keep the directory locked after VOP_LOOKUP() until we've determined
what we're going to do with the child. This allows us to remove the
complicated post LOOKUP code which determins whether we should lock or
unlock the parent. This means we may have to vput() in the appropriate
cases later, rather than doing an unsafe vrele.
- in NDFREE() keep two flags to indicate whether we need to unlock vp or
dvp. This allows us to vput rather than vrele in the appropriate
cases without rechecking the flags. Move the code to handle dvp after
we handle vp.
- Remove some dead code from namei() that was the result of changes to
VFS_LOCK_GIANT().
Sponsored by: Isilon Systems, Inc.
try to reasseble the packet from the fragments queue with the only
fragment, finish with the first fragment as soon as we create a queue.
Spotted by: Vijay Singh
o Drop the fragment if maxfragsperpacket == 0, no chances we
will be able to reassemble the packet in future.
Reviewed by: silby
ip.portrange.last and there is the only port for that because:
a) it is not wise; b) it leads to a panic in the random ip port
allocation code. In general we need to disable ip port allocation
randomization if the last - first delta is ridiculous small.
PR: kern/79342
Spotted by: Anjali Kulkarni
Glanced at by: silby
MFC after: 2 weeks
