Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1760759AbXEPLg6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 07:36:58 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1756784AbXEPLgt (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 07:36:49 -0400 Received: from nz-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.162.236]:1734 "EHLO nz-out-0506.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756374AbXEPLgr (ORCPT ); Wed, 16 May 2007 07:36:47 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=rR4Z3cbucrV7NjL/gY5S+lMfX7cU9Lq76T54A9fGIYV52yqdCiCzZRri/r4rBIGFBcCDVlWDvH7zLLoTJgqFJRi+E2x4Iaw8I1Xdf3XabvezjnoGOvKJ8qiWxP3FV7XF2cyyG7VGkwI6Z58pV++5CU1fnjhQZe49eAm2cIskYoM= Message-ID: Date: Wed, 16 May 2007 17:06:46 +0530 From: "Satyam Sharma" To: "Jiri Kosina" Subject: Re: 2.6.21-rc7: BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at net/core/sock.c:1523 Cc: "Marcel Holtmann" , "Greg KH" , "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" , maxk@qualcomm.com, bluez-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, "Cedric Le Goater" , "Linux Kernel Mailing List" , netdev@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <462D1B09.9050005@goop.org> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1442 Lines: 35 Hi Jiri, On 5/16/07, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Fri, 11 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > > (later) > > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel > > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar > > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429): > > - lock_sock(sock->sk); > > + local_bh_disable(); > > + bh_lock_sock_nested(sock->sk); > > rc = selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid(sock, sksec->sid); > > - release_sock(sock->sk); > > + bh_unlock_sock(sock->sk); > > + local_bh_enable(); > > Is it _really_ *this* simple? > [...] > actually this *seems* to be proper solution also for our case, thanks for > pointing this out. I will think about it once again, do some more tests > with this locking scheme, and will let you know. Yes, I can almost confirm that this (open-coding of spin_lock_bh, effectively) is the proper solution (Rusty's unreliable guide to kernel-locking needs to be next to every developer's keyboard :-) I also came across this idiom in other places in the networking code so it seems to be pretty much the standard way. I wish I owned bluetooth hardware, could've tested this for you myself. Thanks, Satyam - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/