From: Alexey Kuznetsov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 02:20:42 +0400
> Current code in tcp_v4_rcv() calls sk_filter() _before_ it takes socket lock. > This happened when LSM patches were applied. Apparently, LSM does not > want to see socket locked in security_sock_rcv_skb(). Ok. > Obvious solution is to change the third argument of sk_filter > "needlock" to 1. Then we see that sk_filter() is not used with > needlock=0 anymore, therefore it can be completely eliminated. It > was original fix. Really? It is used with needlock=0 by DCCP ipv6, for example. This case seems correct too. What about sk_receive_skb()? dn_queue_skb()? In fact, there seems to be numerous uses still with needlock=0, all legitimate. > I suggested to remove ugly misuse of bh_lock_sock() (introduced by > me, just because there was no better lock to use) and replace it > with RCU, which is logical and clean. > > The patch looks decent. I had one doubt about misuse of > rcu_read_lock_bh() in sk_attach_filter(). Probably, it should be > plain local_bh_disable(), I do not know. But because > rcu_read_lock_bh() actually is local_bh_disable(), it seems to be > not a serious issue. Let us to fix bugs first, and then consider rewriting the locking. :-) - 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
