Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:12:00 -0800
From:   Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>
To:     Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@redhat.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        Jorgen Hansen <jhansen@vmware.com>,
        Stephen Hemminger <sthemmin@microsoft.com>,
        Andy King <acking@vmware.com>, Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>,
        Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@vmware.com>,
        "K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@microsoft.com>,
        George Zhang <georgezhang@vmware.com>,
        Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH net] vsock: fix locking in vsock_shutdown()
Message-ID: <20210208111200.467241da@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210208150431.jtgeyyf5qackl62b@steredhat>
References: <20210208144307.83628-1-sgarzare@redhat.com>
        <20210208150431.jtgeyyf5qackl62b@steredhat>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 8 Feb 2021 16:04:31 +0100 Stefano Garzarella wrote:
> What do you suggest?
> 
> I did it this way because by modifying only the caller, we would have a 
> nested lock.
> 
> This way instead we are sure that if we backport this patch, we don't 
> forget to touch hvs_shutdown() as well.

I'm not a socket expert but the approach seems reasonable to me.