Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 11 Mar 2020 01:28:49 +0000 (GMT)
To:     Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
cc:     Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, bpf <bpf@vger.kernel.org>,
        netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Alexey Kuznetsov <kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru>,
        Hideaki YOSHIFUJI <yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] tcp: Add missing annotation for
 tcp_child_process()
In-Reply-To: <CANn89iJc9e5fQEWerHgDM1g2vp_1EEj0EntbCvccCzAyusHtdg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.21.2003110127440.25519@ninjahub.org>
References: <20200311010908.42366-1-jbi.octave@gmail.com> <20200311010908.42366-4-jbi.octave@gmail.com> <CANn89iJc9e5fQEWerHgDM1g2vp_1EEj0EntbCvccCzAyusHtdg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Thanks for the feedbacks. Good to know I have not used lockdep but I will 
try it.

On Tue, 10 Mar 2020, Eric Dumazet wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 6:09 PM Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Sparse reports warning at tcp_child_process()
> > warning: context imbalance in tcp_child_process() - unexpected unlock
> > The root cause is the missing annotation at tcp_child_process()
> >
> > Add the missing __releases(&((child)->sk_lock.slock)) annotation
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jules Irenge <jbi.octave@gmail.com>
> > ---
> >  net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > index ad3b56d9fa71..0e8a5b6e477c 100644
> > --- a/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > +++ b/net/ipv4/tcp_minisocks.c
> > @@ -817,6 +817,7 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(tcp_check_req);
> >
> >  int tcp_child_process(struct sock *parent, struct sock *child,
> >                       struct sk_buff *skb)
> > +       __releases(&((child)->sk_lock.slock))
> >  {
> >         int ret = 0;
> >         int state = child->sk_state;
> 
> 
> Yeah, although we prefer to use lockdep these days ;)
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>
>