Hi Marcel, > so I am not big fan of the conditional locking in case of parent is set or > not. Do you have a test case that reproduces the mentioned race. It would > love to have that in tools/l2cap-tester or similar.
So far I could only reproduce the bug by repeatedly performing RFCOMM connections and resets. I'll try to implement something in rfcomm-tester or l2cap-tester. Since this is a race condition, I'm not confident that I can help you reproduce the bug reliably on a different test setup. I'd appreciate it very much if you can offer any tips on triggering a race condition faster in a test case. > Maybe the code needs some restructuring to avoid the conditional locking. I agree that my patch is not very elegant, and I'd love any way to improve it. I have some ideas, but I'm not familiar enough with kernel development to know whether other solutions are safe to implement, such as: * Removing bt_accept_unlink from l2cap_teardown_cb, and relying on bt_accept_dequeue to unlink the socket when it's enumerated. Is it safe to leave a zapped sock in accept_q? * Perform "unlock sock; lock parent; lock sock" before calling bt_accept_unlink in teardown_cb. This is still conditional locking, but around a smaller block of code. Is it safe to unlock a zapped sock? * Use RCU for handling accept_q. Is this appropriate? Please let me know what you think. Regards, Yichen Zhao
