[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <D8BE686E-E81D-48CD-8D67-2B138191E0CC@holtmann.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:37:15 +0900
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@...tmann.org>
To: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org development"
<linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: shutdown(3) and bluetooth.
Hi Dave,
>>> Here's the info I found in the logs, it looks like this was the only bluetooth socket.
>>>
>>> fd[195] = domain:31 (PF_BLUETOOTH) type:0x5 protocol:2
>>> Setsockopt(1 d 2134000 8) on fd 195
>>
>> this is a bit confusing. Protocol 2 is actually SCO, but the stack trace shows RFCOMM.
>
> Sorry, mixed up two separate runs. In the log above, the stack trace is actually..
>
> [<ffffffffa0492dca>] bt_sock_wait_state+0xda/0x240 [bluetooth]
> [<ffffffffa04c86d8>] sco_sock_release+0xb8/0xf0 [bluetooth]
> [<ffffffff815cb1ff>] sock_release+0x1f/0x90
> [<ffffffff815cb282>] sock_close+0x12/0x20
>
>
>>> ./trinity -P PF_BLUETOOTH -l off -c setsockopt
>>>
>>> let it run a few seconds, and then ctrl-c. The main process will never exit.
>>>
>>> 5814 pts/6 Ss 0:00 | \_ bash
>>> 5876 pts/6 S+ 0:00 | | \_ ./trinity -P PF_BLUETOOTH -l off -c setsockopt
>>> 5877 pts/6 Z+ 0:00 | | \_ [trinity] <defunct>
>>> 5878 pts/6 S+ 0:01 | | \_ [trinity-main]
>>>
>>> $ sudo cat /proc/5878/stack
>>> [<ffffffffa04397a2>] bt_sock_wait_state+0xc2/0x190 [bluetooth]
>>> [<ffffffffa0847a75>] rfcomm_sock_shutdown+0x85/0xb0 [rfcomm]
>>> [<ffffffffa0847ad9>] rfcomm_sock_release+0x39/0xb0 [rfcomm]
>
> So it seems it affects both SCO and RFCOMM.
>
>> What kernel did you run this against? It is a shot in the dark, but can you try linux-next quickly.
>> There was a socket related fix for the socket options where we confused RFCOMM vs L2CAP struct sock.
>
> first noticed it on Linus' latest HEAD, and then reproduced it on 3.11.6
> I'll look at linux-next tomorrow.
I looked through the code and only call bt_sock_wait_state when SOCK_LINGER and sk_lingertime is set. In that case we actually block until the socket state changes to BT_CLOSED.
The only way I see this could happen is if you have a huge linger timeout and confused the socket state before. What is actually the list of system calls that you are throwing at this socket.
Regards
Marcel
--
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