Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.38 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.38;
Date:   Wed, 11 Oct 2023 08:30:19 +0200
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Abhinav Singh <singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
Cc:     davem@davemloft.net, dsahern@kernel.org, edumazet@google.com,
        kuba@kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remove extra unlock for the mutex
Message-ID: <2023101136-irritate-shrine-cde6@gregkh>
References: <20231010224630.238254-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20231010224630.238254-1-singhabhinav9051571833@gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Oct 11, 2023 at 04:16:30AM +0530, Abhinav Singh wrote:
> There is a double unlock on mutex. This can cause undefined behaviour.
> 
> 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);

How was this tested?

And where is the now-needed unlock of the head->lock?

How was this change found?

And your subject line needs a lot of work...

thanks,

greg k-h