[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a781481a0705160436s3564022aybd9b318ec0947d94@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:06:46 +0530
From: "Satyam Sharma" <satyam.sharma@...il.com>
To: "Jiri Kosina" <jikos@...os.cz>
Cc: "Marcel Holtmann" <marcel@...tmann.org>,
"Greg KH" <gregkh@...e.de>,
"Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@...p.org>, maxk@...lcomm.com,
bluez-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
"Cedric Le Goater" <clg@...ibm.com>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc7: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1523
Hi Jiri,
On 5/16/07, Jiri Kosina <jikos@...os.cz> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote:
> > (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.
Thanks,
Satyam
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists