On Wed, 2006-06-21 at 10:34 +1000, Herbert Xu wrote:
> > As I read this it is not a recursive lock as sk_clone is occurring
> > second and is actually creating a new socket so they are trying to
> > lock on different sockets.
> >
> > Can someone tell me whether I am correct in my thinking or not? If I
> > am then I will work out how to tell the lock validator not to worry
> > about it.
>
> I agree, this looks bogus. Ingo, could you please take a look?
Fix is relatively easy:
sk_clone creates a new socket, and thus can never deadlock, and in fact
can be called with the original socket locked. This therefore is a
legitimate nesting case; mark it as such.
Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---
net/core/sock.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
Index: linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/net/core/sock.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2.orig/net/core/sock.c
+++ linux-2.6.17-rc6-mm2/net/core/sock.c
@@ -846,7 +846,7 @@ struct sock *sk_clone(const struct sock
/* SANITY */
sk_node_init(&newsk->sk_node);
sock_lock_init(newsk);
- bh_lock_sock(newsk);
+ bh_lock_sock_nested(newsk);
atomic_set(&newsk->sk_rmem_alloc, 0);
atomic_set(&newsk->sk_wmem_alloc, 0);
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
