[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2023101136-irritate-shrine-cde6@gregkh>
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2023 08:30:19 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@...il.com>
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, dsahern@...nel.org, edumazet@...gle.com,
kuba@...nel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel-mentees@...ts.linuxfoundation.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove extra unlock for the mutex
On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 04:16:30AM +0530, Abhinav Singh wrote:
> There is a double unlock on mutex. This can cause undefined behaviour.
>
> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@...il.com>
> ---
> net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c | 1 -
> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> index aeebe8816689..f11fe8c727a4 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> @@ -597,7 +597,6 @@ int inet_csk_get_port(struct sock *sk, unsigned short snum)
> }
> if (head2_lock_acquired)
> spin_unlock(&head2->lock);
> - spin_unlock_bh(&head->lock);
How was this tested?
And where is the now-needed unlock of the head->lock?
How was this change found?
And your subject line needs a lot of work...
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists