Jiri Kosina <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Hmm, *sigh*. I guess the patch below fixes the problem, but it is a
> masterpiece in the field of ugliness. And I am not sure whether it is
> completely correct either. Are there any immediate ideas for better
> solution with respect to how struct sock locking works?
Please cc such patches to netdev. Thanks.
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> index 71f5cfb..c5c93cd 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> @@ -656,7 +656,10 @@ static int hci_sock_dev_event(struct notifier_block *this, unsigned long event,
> /* Detach sockets from device */
> read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
> sk_for_each(sk, node, &hci_sk_list.head) {
> - lock_sock(sk);
> + if (in_atomic())
> + bh_lock_sock(sk);
> + else
> + lock_sock(sk);
This doesn't do what you think it does. bh_lock_sock can still succeed
even with lock_sock held by someone else.
Does this need to occur immediately when an event occurs? If not I'd
suggest moving this into a workqueue.
Cheers,
--
Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[email protected]>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
-
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]
