linux-kernel - socket locking obscure code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20070901045020.GA7221@cvg>
Date:	Sat, 1 Sep 2007 08:50:20 +0400
From:	Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: socket locking obscure code

Hi LKML,
 
looking thru lock_sock_nested (while trying to catch
BUG in CIFS as reported on bugzilla #8377) I found
that lock_sock_nested consist of:

void fastcall lock_sock_nested(struct sock *sk, int subclass)
{
	might_sleep();
--->	spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
	if (sk->sk_lock.owner)
		__lock_sock(sk);
	sk->sk_lock.owner = (void *)1;
--->	spin_unlock(&sk->sk_lock.slock);
	/*
	 * The sk_lock has mutex_lock() semantics here:
	 */
	mutex_acquire(&sk->sk_lock.dep_map, subclass, 0, _RET_IP_);
	local_bh_enable();
}
 
so why spin_unlock are there instead of spin_unlock_bh?
To recope with __lock_sock? Am I right?
 
 		Cyrill
 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/