Hi Gustavo,
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 3:33 PM, Gustavo Padovan <padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Andrei,
>
> * Emeltchenko Andrei <Andrei.Emeltchenko.news@xxxxxxxxx> [2012-02-20 16:21:13 +0200]:
>
> > From: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Usage of RCU list looks not reasonalbe for a number of reasons:
> > our code sleep and we have to use socket spinlocks, some parts
> > of code are updaters thus we need to use mutexes anyway.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andrei Emeltchenko <andrei.emeltchenko@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 165 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> > net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c | 10 +++
> > 2 files changed, 108 insertions(+), 67 deletions(-)add an extra blank line here please.
<snip>
> > +unlock:
> > + mutex_unlock(&conn->chan_lock);
> > +
> > + return err;
> > }
> >
> > static inline void set_default_fcs(struct l2cap_chan *chan)
> > @@ -2793,6 +2804,7 @@ static inline int l2cap_config_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr
> > return -ENOENT;
> >
> > sk = chan->sk;
> > + lock_sock(sk);
> >
> > if (chan->state != BT_CONFIG && chan->state != BT_CONNECT2) {
> > struct l2cap_cmd_rej_cid rej;
> > @@ -2905,6 +2917,7 @@ static inline int l2cap_config_rsp(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hdr
> > return 0;
> >
> > sk = chan->sk;
> > + lock_sock(sk);
> >
> > switch (result) {
> > case L2CAP_CONF_SUCCESS:
> > @@ -3006,11 +3019,16 @@ static inline int l2cap_disconnect_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd
> >
> > BT_DBG("scid 0x%4.4x dcid 0x%4.4x", scid, dcid);
> >
> > - chan = l2cap_get_chan_by_scid(conn, dcid);
> > - if (!chan)
> > + mutex_lock(&conn->chan_lock);
> > +
> > + chan = __l2cap_get_chan_by_scid(conn, dcid);
> > + if (!chan) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&conn->chan_lock);
> > return 0;
>
> Seems to me we can use l2cap_get_chan_by_scid() here.
It's better if we don't as we'll call l2cap_chan_del() which might
remove chan from conn->chan_l that's protected by conn->chan_lock.
Let's leave it as he sent.
> > + }
> >
> > sk = chan->sk;
> > + lock_sock(sk);
> >
> > rsp.dcid = cpu_to_le16(chan->scid);
> > rsp.scid = cpu_to_le16(chan->dcid);
> > @@ -3022,6 +3040,9 @@ static inline int l2cap_disconnect_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd
> > release_sock(sk);
> >
> > chan->ops->close(chan->data);
> > +
> > + mutex_unlock(&conn->chan_lock);
> > +
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -3037,16 +3058,24 @@ static inline int l2cap_disconnect_rsp(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd
> >
> > BT_DBG("dcid 0x%4.4x scid 0x%4.4x", dcid, scid);
> >
> > - chan = l2cap_get_chan_by_scid(conn, scid);
> > - if (!chan)
> > + mutex_lock(&conn->chan_lock);
> > +
> > + chan = __l2cap_get_chan_by_scid(conn, scid);
> > + if (!chan) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&conn->chan_lock);
> > return 0;
>
> Same here.
Same comment above applies here.
Apart from the extra new line that Padovan asked I'm ok with this commit.
Reviewed-by: Ulisses Furquim <ulisses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
