Hi Dean, On Tue, Jun 23, 2015, Dean Jenkins wrote: > --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > @@ -1100,6 +1100,13 @@ static int l2cap_sock_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int how) > if (!sk) > return 0; > > + lock_sock(sk); > + > + if (sk->sk_shutdown) > + goto shutdown_already; > + > + sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK; > + > /* prevent sk structure from being freed whilst unlocked */ > sock_hold(sk); > > @@ -1114,30 +1121,21 @@ static int l2cap_sock_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int how) > mutex_lock(&conn->chan_lock); > > l2cap_chan_lock(chan); > - lock_sock(sk); I guess this is at least part of the reason for the lockdep warnings we started getting after your patches. The order of these locks should always be l2cap_chan_lock() and then lock_sock(). Any other order exposes us to potential deadlocks and the kernel lockdep system rightly warns about it. Do you think you'll be able to fix this as well as the missing mutex_lock(&conn->chan_lock) issue this week? Otherwise we'll need to consider reverting your patches since it's quite clear we can't make any bluetooth-next pull requests with the current state of the tree. Johan -- 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
