Hi Satyam,
> > > > > > (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?
> >
> > I've fixed a simple patch on top of 2.6.22-rc1 below.
>
> Eek, please ignore previous one. This one's correct.
>
> Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <[email protected]>
>
> diff -ruNp a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c
> --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c 2007-05-16 17:31:06.000000000 +0530
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c 2007-05-16 17:38:35.000000000 +0530
> @@ -665,7 +665,8 @@ static int hci_sock_dev_event(struct not
> /* Detach sockets from device */
> read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
> sk_for_each(sk, node, &hci_sk_list.head) {
> - lock_sock(sk);
> + local_bh_disable();
> + bh_lock_sock_nested(sk);
> if (hci_pi(sk)->hdev == hdev) {
> hci_pi(sk)->hdev = NULL;
> sk->sk_err = EPIPE;
> @@ -674,7 +675,8 @@ static int hci_sock_dev_event(struct not
>
> hci_dev_put(hdev);
> }
> - release_sock(sk);
> + bh_unlock_sock(sk);
> + local_bh_enable();
> }
> read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock);
> }
since Jiri has a good test case for it, I leave it to him for testing.
If he confirms that this fixes the locking issues, then this is
Signed-off-by: Marcel Holtmann <[email protected]>
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]
