Messages in this thread Patch in this message | | | Date | Wed, 16 May 2007 17:26:38 +0530 | From | "Satyam Sharma" <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.21-rc7: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1523 |
| |
Hi Marcel,
On 5/16/07, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org> wrote: > 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?
I've fixed a simple patch on top of 2.6.22-rc1 below.
Signed-off-by: Satyam Sharma <ssatyam@cse.iitk.ac.in>
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 17:33:36.000000000 +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; @@ -674,6 +675,8 @@ static int hci_sock_dev_event(struct not
hci_dev_put(hdev); } + bh_unlock_sock(sk); + local_bh_enable(); release_sock(sk); } read_unlock(&hci_sk_list.lock); - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |