Return-Path: Message-ID: <1338176928.15105.114.camel@aeonflux> Subject: Re: [PATCH -v2 07/12] Bluetooth: Create DEFER_SETUP flag in conf_state From: Marcel Holtmann To: Gustavo Padovan Cc: linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, Gustavo Padovan Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 05:48:48 +0200 In-Reply-To: <20120527190020.GA14106@joana> References: <1337949064-26187-1-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org> <1337949064-26187-8-git-send-email-gustavo@padovan.org> <1338095235.15105.103.camel@aeonflux> <20120527190020.GA14106@joana> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi Gustavo, > > > Remove another socket usage from l2cap_core.c > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan > > > --- > > > include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h | 1 + > > > net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c | 12 ++++++------ > > > net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c | 8 ++++++-- > > > 3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h b/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h > > > index 3b05f3e..c55b28f 100644 > > > --- a/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h > > > +++ b/include/net/bluetooth/l2cap.h > > > @@ -599,6 +599,7 @@ enum { > > > CONF_LOC_CONF_PEND, > > > CONF_REM_CONF_PEND, > > > CONF_NOT_COMPLETE, > > > + CONF_DEFER_SETUP, > > > }; > > > > > > #define L2CAP_CONF_MAX_CONF_REQ 2 > > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c > > > index 01171b1..388bc70 100644 > > > --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c > > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_core.c > > > @@ -569,7 +569,7 @@ void l2cap_chan_close(struct l2cap_chan *chan, int reason) > > > struct l2cap_conn_rsp rsp; > > > __u16 result; > > > > > > - if (test_bit(BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP, &bt_sk(sk)->flags)) > > > + if (test_bit(CONF_DEFER_SETUP, &chan->conf_state)) > > > result = L2CAP_CR_SEC_BLOCK; > > > else > > > result = L2CAP_CR_BAD_PSM; > > > @@ -1056,8 +1056,8 @@ static void l2cap_conn_start(struct l2cap_conn *conn) > > > > > > if (l2cap_chan_check_security(chan)) { > > > lock_sock(sk); > > > - if (test_bit(BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP, > > > - &bt_sk(sk)->flags)) { > > > + if (test_bit(CONF_DEFER_SETUP, > > > + &chan->conf_state)) { > > > struct sock *parent = bt_sk(sk)->parent; > > > rsp.result = __constant_cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_CR_PEND); > > > rsp.status = __constant_cpu_to_le16(L2CAP_CS_AUTHOR_PEND); > > > @@ -3376,7 +3376,7 @@ static inline int l2cap_connect_req(struct l2cap_conn *conn, struct l2cap_cmd_hd > > > > > > if (conn->info_state & L2CAP_INFO_FEAT_MASK_REQ_DONE) { > > > if (l2cap_chan_check_security(chan)) { > > > - if (test_bit(BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP, &bt_sk(sk)->flags)) { > > > + if (test_bit(CONF_DEFER_SETUP, &chan->conf_state)) { > > > __l2cap_state_change(chan, BT_CONNECT2); > > > result = L2CAP_CR_PEND; > > > status = L2CAP_CS_AUTHOR_PEND; > > > @@ -5406,8 +5406,8 @@ int l2cap_security_cfm(struct hci_conn *hcon, u8 status, u8 encrypt) > > > lock_sock(sk); > > > > > > if (!status) { > > > - if (test_bit(BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP, > > > - &bt_sk(sk)->flags)) { > > > + if (test_bit(CONF_DEFER_SETUP, > > > + &chan->conf_state)) { > > > struct sock *parent = bt_sk(sk)->parent; > > > res = L2CAP_CR_PEND; > > > stat = L2CAP_CS_AUTHOR_PEND; > > > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > > > index d2d91b3..51d05a7 100644 > > > --- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > > > +++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c > > > @@ -623,10 +623,14 @@ static int l2cap_sock_setsockopt(struct socket *sock, int level, int optname, ch > > > break; > > > } > > > > > > - if (opt) > > > + if (opt) { > > > set_bit(BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP, &bt_sk(sk)->flags); > > > - else > > > + set_bit(CONF_DEFER_SETUP, &chan->conf_state); > > > + } else { > > > clear_bit(BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP, &bt_sk(sk)->flags); > > > + clear_bit(CONF_DEFER_SETUP, &chan->conf_state); > > > + } > > > + > > > break; > > > > and what about the lines above testing this together with BT_SECURITY? > > I'm ok with those lines using BT_SK_DEFER_SETUP. CONF_DEFER_SETUP is meant for > l2cap_core.c use where we should not have access to sk. I am not since it is more states we have to keep in sync. That is a bad idea. What is the real plan here? Regards Marcel