* Ulisses Furquim <ulisses@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2012-02-20 15:57:52 -0300]:
> 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.
Yes, I didn't realized the l2cap_chan_del() part. So after fix the new line
fix:
Acked-by: Gustavo F. Padovan <padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Gustavo
--
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
