Hi Andrei,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Emeltchenko Andrei
<Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Ulisses,
>
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:16:53AM +0200, Emeltchenko Andrei wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 03:23:54PM -0200, Ulisses Furquim wrote:
>> > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Emeltchenko Andrei
>> > <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > > Hi Ulisses,
>> > >
>> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:06:10PM -0300, Ulisses Furquim wrote:
>> > > ...
>> > >> Yes, I do think they belong together. And please, check l2cap_sock.c
>> > >> where l2cap_chan_close() seems to be called without locking
>> > >> conn->chan_lock in l2cap_sock_shutdown().
>> > >
>> > > In that context we do not always have l2cap_conn so maybe we return
>> > > chan list lock to chan_del or invent unlocked chan_del / chan_close?
>> >
>> > We don't have l2cap_conn? So are we already on conn->chan_l list or
>> > not? Maybe it's better to check that instead of changing everything
>> > now.
>
> Maybe this check?
>
> if (!sk->sk_shutdown) {
> + struct l2cap_conn *conn = chan->conn;
> +
> if (chan->mode == L2CAP_MODE_ERTM)
> err = __l2cap_wait_ack(sk);
>
> sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
> release_sock(sk);
> +
> + if (conn)
> + mutex_lock(&conn->chan_lock);
> l2cap_chan_close(chan, 0);
> + if (conn)
> + mutex_unlock(&conn->chan_lock);
> +
> lock_sock(sk);
>
> if (sock_flag(sk, SOCK_LINGER) && sk->sk_lingertime)
> err = bt_sock_wait_state(sk, BT_CLOSED,
> sk->sk_lingertime);
>
> If it does not look too hackish...
l2cap_chan_del() is already doing the exact same test for conn to
remove it from conn->chan_l or not. Maybe add a comment to make it
more clear?
Regards,
--
Ulisses Furquim
ProFUSION embedded systems
http://profusion.mobi
Mobile: +55 19 9250 0942
Skype: ulissesffs
--
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
