On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 08:37:15AM +0900, Marcel Holtmann wrote:
> > So it seems it affects both SCO and RFCOMM.
> >
> >> What kernel did you run this against? It is a shot in the dark, but can you try linux-next quickly.
> >> There was a socket related fix for the socket options where we confused RFCOMM vs L2CAP struct sock.
> >
> > first noticed it on Linus' latest HEAD, and then reproduced it on 3.11.6
> > I'll look at linux-next tomorrow.
>
> I looked through the code and only call bt_sock_wait_state when SOCK_LINGER and sk_lingertime is set. In that case we actually block until the socket state changes to BT_CLOSED.
>
> The only way I see this could happen is if you have a huge linger timeout and confused the socket state before. What is actually the list of system calls that you are throwing at this socket.
Ah. I recently changed some code that's now doing this on every socket at shutdown..
(simplified cut-n-paste)
struct linger ling = { .l_onoff = FALSE, };
for (i = 0; i < nr_sockets; i++) {
fd = shm->sockets[i].fd;
shm->sockets[i].fd = 0;
setsockopt(fd, SOL_SOCKET, SO_LINGER, &ling, sizeof(struct linger));
shutdown(fd, SHUT_RDWR);
close(fd);
}
I could just rip out that linger code completely and just hope that sockets staying in
TIME_WAIT is good enough. iirc, I added it when after multiple runs, some of the
weirder protocols would fail to open a socket once a certain number of existing
sockets had opened, even if they were in SOCK_WAIT
two remaining questions though. That code is setting linger to false. Why would
that cause the sk_lingertime to be taken into consideration ? And why is this
only a problem for bluetooth (apparently) ?
Dave
--
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
