From: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2024 21:08:30 -0500
> Cc: netdev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> net/core/sock.c | 1 +
> net/unix/af_unix.c | 4 ++--
> 2 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/core/sock.c b/net/core/sock.c
> index 158dbdebce6a..da7360c0f454 100644
> --- a/net/core/sock.c
> +++ b/net/core/sock.c
> @@ -3474,6 +3474,7 @@ void sock_init_data_uid(struct socket *sock, struct sock *sk, kuid_t uid)
> sk->sk_peer_pid = NULL;
> sk->sk_peer_cred = NULL;
> spin_lock_init(&sk->sk_peer_lock);
> + lock_set_cmp_fn_ptr_order(&sk->sk_peer_lock);
>
> sk->sk_write_pending = 0;
> sk->sk_rcvlowat = 1;
> diff --git a/net/unix/af_unix.c b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> index ac1f2bc18fc9..d013de3c5490 100644
> --- a/net/unix/af_unix.c
> +++ b/net/unix/af_unix.c
> @@ -706,10 +706,10 @@ static void copy_peercred(struct sock *sk, struct sock *peersk)
>
> if (sk < peersk) {
> spin_lock(&sk->sk_peer_lock);
> - spin_lock_nested(&peersk->sk_peer_lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> + spin_lock(&peersk->sk_peer_lock);
> } else {
> spin_lock(&peersk->sk_peer_lock);
> - spin_lock_nested(&sk->sk_peer_lock, SINGLE_DEPTH_NESTING);
> + spin_lock(&sk->sk_peer_lock);
> }
hmm.. I think we need not hold two locks here in the first place.
Let me post patches.
Thanks!
> old_pid = sk->sk_peer_pid;
> old_cred = sk->sk_peer_cred;
> --
> 2.43.0
