Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hmm, *sigh*. I guess the patch below fixes the problem, but it is a > masterpiece in the field of ugliness. And I am not sure whether it is > completely correct either. Are there any immediate ideas for better > solution with respect to how struct sock locking works?
Please cc such patches to netdev. Thanks. > diff --git a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c > index 71f5cfb..c5c93cd 100644 > --- a/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c > +++ b/net/bluetooth/hci_sock.c > @@ -656,7 +656,10 @@ static int hci_sock_dev_event(struct notifier_block > *this, unsigned long event, > /* Detach sockets from device */ > read_lock(&hci_sk_list.lock); > sk_for_each(sk, node, &hci_sk_list.head) { > - lock_sock(sk); > + if (in_atomic()) > + bh_lock_sock(sk); > + else > + lock_sock(sk); This doesn't do what you think it does. bh_lock_sock can still succeed even with lock_sock held by someone else. Does this need to occur immediately when an event occurs? If not I'd suggest moving this into a workqueue. Cheers, -- Visit Openswan at http://www.openswan.org/ Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/ PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/