Hi Andrei, * Ville Tervo <ville.tervo@xxxxxx> [2010-05-28 10:14:31 +0300]: > Hi, > > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 5:39 AM, Gustavo F. Padovan <gustavo@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Using the sock timer like you are you using looks too hackish, there are > > kernel struct for such defer works. I still prefer the first solution, > > that avoids the call to l2cap_chan_del() only. > > But we have to solve the problem with the sock_kill() call, I'm > > wondering if add a check inside l2cap_sock_kill is good idea. So we > > check if the socket is owned by user and if yes, we just return, however > > may have problem with socket refcnt doing that. > > > > Looking to the rfcomm code I found something that could be cause of the > > problem, there isn't any sock_hold() in the rfcomm code, maybe is it > > missing? Nevertheless it does the sock_put() without call sock_hold(). > > > > Like you I'm trying to figure out how to fix this issue, I don't know > > yet how to fix it properly. I advice to take a look on the rfcomm code > > and check if we really are missing a sock_hold() there. > > Wouldn't backlogging of destructive operations (l2cap disc rsp and > req) solve these issues? All operations cannot be backlogged since > they cannot mapped to certain sock. I've been thinking about this issue and now I agree that backlog them is the better solution. We're already using backlog queue for ERTM, so you will have to extend it only. Check the branch for-next of my tree to see how I did that. -- Gustavo F. Padovan http://padovan.org -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bluetooth" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
