Hi Jiri, On 5/16/07, Jiri Kosina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 11 May 2007, Satyam Sharma wrote: > (later) > I Googled a bit to see if this problem was faced elsewhere in the kernel > too. Saw the following commit by Ingo Molnar > (9883a13c72dbf8c518814b6091019643cdb34429): > - lock_sock(sock->sk); > + local_bh_disable(); > + bh_lock_sock_nested(sock->sk); > rc = selinux_netlbl_socket_setsid(sock, sksec->sid); > - release_sock(sock->sk); > + bh_unlock_sock(sock->sk); > + local_bh_enable(); > Is it _really_ *this* simple? [...] actually this *seems* to be proper solution also for our case, thanks for pointing this out. I will think about it once again, do some more tests with this locking scheme, and will let you know.
Yes, I can almost confirm that this (open-coding of spin_lock_bh, effectively) is the proper solution (Rusty's unreliable guide to kernel-locking needs to be next to every developer's keyboard :-) I also came across this idiom in other places in the networking code so it seems to be pretty much the standard way. I wish I owned bluetooth hardware, could've tested this for you myself. Thanks, Satyam - 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
