Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.31 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.31;
Message-ID: <ab48efc3-9f40-4eed-bdb1-4ce04d3c55cf@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 10 Oct 2023 15:51:13 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove extra unlock for the mutex
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>,
        davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com
Cc:     netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
References: <20231010224630.238254-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
From:   Florian Fainelli <f.fainelli@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231010224630.238254-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 10/10/23 15:46, Abhinav Singh wrote:
> There is a double unlock on mutex. This can cause undefined behaviour.

Where is the double unlock of head->lock (which is a spinlock and not a 
mutex, btw)?

> 
> Signed-off-by: Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
> ---
>   net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c | 1 -
>   1 file changed, 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> index aeebe8816689..f11fe8c727a4 100644
> --- a/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> +++ b/net/ipv4/inet_connection_sock.c
> @@ -597,7 +597,6 @@ int inet_csk_get_port(struct sock *sk, unsigned short snum)
>   	}
>   	if (head2_lock_acquired)
>   		spin_unlock(&head2->lock);
> -	spin_unlock_bh(&head->lock);
>   	return ret;
>   }
>   EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(inet_csk_get_port);

-- 
Florian