[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAABMjtHJX6Rm1Ndg+bECbERWkFYdWbDDYd1-5bVFTu-qwKW=sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2022 22:42:13 +0600
From: Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@...il.com>
To: Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@...il.com>
Cc: syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@...kaller.appspotmail.com,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@...istor.com>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
"open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>,
linux-kernel-mentees
<linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org>,
linux-afs@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: fix bad unlock balance in rxrpc_do_sendmsg
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:58 PM Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 6:58 PM Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> The interruptible version fails to acquire the lock. So why is it okay to
> force it to acquire the mutex_lock since we are in the interrupt context?
Sorry, I mean, won't the function lose its ability of being interruptible?
Since we are forcing it to acquire the lock.
> > return sock_intr_errno(*timeo);
> > + }
> > }
> > }
>
> thanks,
> -- Khalid Masum
Powered by blists - more mailing lists