Hi Satayam,
> > > (later)
> > > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel
> > > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar
> > > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429):
> > > - lock_sock(sock->sk);
> > > + local_bh_disable();
> > > + bh_lock_sock_nested(sock->sk);
> > > rc = selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid(sock, sksec->sid);
> > > - release_sock(sock->sk);
> > > + bh_unlock_sock(sock->sk);
> > > + local_bh_enable();
> > > Is it _really_ *this* simple?
> > [...]
> > actually this *seems* to be proper solution also for our case, thanks for
> > pointing this out. I will think about it once again, do some more tests
> > with this locking scheme, and will let you know.
>
> Yes, I can almost confirm that this (open-coding of spin_lock_bh,
> effectively) is the proper solution (Rusty's unreliable guide to
> kernel-locking needs to be next to every developer's keyboard :-)
> I also came across this idiom in other places in the networking code
> so it seems to be pretty much the standard way. I wish I owned
> bluetooth hardware, could've tested this for you myself.
does this mean we should revert previous changes to the locking or only
apply this on top of it?
Regards
Marcel
-
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]
