Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <000000000000ce327f05d537ebf7@google.com> <20220821125751.4185-1-yin31149@gmail.com>
 <CAABMjtF2GeNyTf6gQ1hk0BiXKY9HWQStBAk_R3w6MCFQ3bOYzA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAABMjtF2GeNyTf6gQ1hk0BiXKY9HWQStBAk_R3w6MCFQ3bOYzA@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@gmail.com>
Date:   Sun, 21 Aug 2022 22:42:13 +0600
Message-ID: <CAABMjtHJX6Rm1Ndg+bECbERWkFYdWbDDYd1-5bVFTu-qwKW=sA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] rxrpc: fix bad unlock balance in rxrpc_do_sendmsg
To:     Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@gmail.com>
Cc:     syzbot+7f0483225d0c94cb3441@syzkaller.appspotmail.com,
        David Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>,
        Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@auristor.com>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        Eric Dumazet <edumazet@google.com>,
        Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
        Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>,
        "open list:NETWORKING [GENERAL]" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        syzkaller-bugs <syzkaller-bugs@googlegroups.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel-mentees 
        <linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
        linux-afs@lists.infradead.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 9:58 PM Khalid Masum <khalid.masum.92@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 6:58 PM Hawkins Jiawei <yin31149@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> The interruptible version fails to acquire the lock. So why is it okay to
> force it to acquire the mutex_lock since we are in the interrupt context?

Sorry, I mean, won't the function lose its ability of being interruptible?
Since we are forcing it to acquire the lock.
> >                         return sock_intr_errno(*timeo);
> > +               }
> >         }
> >  }
>
> thanks,
>   -- Khalid Masum