On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 8:29 PM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Octavian,
>
>> >> +void bt_sock_reclassify_lock(struct sock *sk, int proto)
>> >> {
>> >> - struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
>> >> -
>> >> if (!sk)
>> >> return;
>> >
>> > Why are we keeping the !sk check here if we already hand in the sk. It
>> > is most likely checked by the caller already.
>> >
>>
>> In rfcomm_sock_create (called from bt_sock_create) sock->sk can be set
>> to NULL so I think we should keep the check.
>
> it has been too long since I looked at this part of the code. You need
> to walk me through it why this is still true.
>
Hi Marcel,
In bt_sock_create we have:
if (bt_proto[proto] && try_module_get(bt_proto[proto]->owner)) {
err = bt_proto[proto]->create(net, sock, proto, kern);
bt_sock_reclassify_lock(sock->sk, proto);
and create can be rfcomm_sock_create where we have
sk = rfcomm_sock_alloc(net, sock, protocol, GFP_ATOMIC);
if (!sk)
return -ENOMEM;
So after calling ->create() sock->sk can be NULL and thus we can call
bt_sock_reclassify with a NULL parameter.
Does this make sense?
Thanks,
Tavi
--
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
