lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] bluetooth: fix locking bug in the rfcomm socket cleanup handling
Date
Hi Arjan,

> From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> Subject: [PATCH] bluetooth: fix locking bug in the rfcomm socket
> cleanup handling
>
> in net/bluetooth/rfcomm/sock.c, rfcomm_sk_state_change() does the
> following operation:
>
> if (parent && sock_flag(sk, SOCK_ZAPPED)) {
> /* We have to drop DLC lock here, otherwise
> * rfcomm_sock_destruct() will dead lock. */
> rfcomm_dlc_unlock(d);
> rfcomm_sock_kill(sk);
> rfcomm_dlc_lock(d);
> }
> }
>
> which is fine, since rfcomm_sock_kill() will call sk_free() which
> will call
> rfcomm_sock_destruct() which takes the rfcomm_dlc_lock()... so far
> so good.
>
> HOWEVER, this assumes that the rfcomm_sk_state_change() function
> always gets
> called with the rfcomm_dlc_lock() taken. This is the case for all
> but one
> case, and in that case where we don't have the lock, we do a double
> unlock
> followed by an attempt to take the lock, which due to underflow isn't
> going anywhere fast.
>
> This patch fixes this by moving the stragling case inside the lock,
> like
> the other usages of the same call are doing in this code.
>
> This was found with the help of the www.kerneloops.org project,
> where this
> deadlock was observed 51 times at this point in time:
> http://www.kerneloops.org/search.php?search=rfcomm_sock_destruct
>
> Signed-off-by: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
> ---
> net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c
> index eb62558..0c2c937 100644
> --- a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c
> +++ b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/core.c
> @@ -423,8 +423,8 @@ static int __rfcomm_dlc_close(struct rfcomm_dlc
> *d, int err)
>
> rfcomm_dlc_lock(d);
> d->state = BT_CLOSED;
> - rfcomm_dlc_unlock(d);
> d->state_change(d, err);
> + rfcomm_dlc_unlock(d);
>
> skb_queue_purge(&d->tx_queue);
> rfcomm_dlc_unlink(d);

this is really embarrassing, but a good catch on your side. I simply
never realized that mistake when going through that part of the code.

Acked-by: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>

David, you might wanna queue this up for stable, too.

Regards

Marcel



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-29 08:53    [W:0.060 / U:0.292 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site