Hi Dave,
>>> 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) ?
we are not touching that part of setsockopt. That is handled by net/core/sock.c and we just check if SOCK_LINGER flag is set and if we have a positive sk_lingertime. So this is a bit suspicious on why this is happening, but I don’t think it is our mistake.
Regards
Marcel
--
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
