Arjan van de Ven wrote: > Vlad Yasevich wrote: >> Hm... This is another case of of two different sockets taking the same >> lock... >> >> Arjan, did this every get fixed, or is the nested locking the right >> solution >> to this? >> > > for this specific case it's ok and the nested solution is right. > In the general case it's obviously not safe to take the locks of two > sockets in "unspecified" order.... >
Well, in this case the order is very carefully specified, but I was more interested in what the right solution is. The newsk, from the patch, has just been created, but needs to be locked to prevent soft_irq from queuing packets to it while we are mucking around. This is the same case as the accept case that had issues some time ago. -vlad - 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
