lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Dec]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH net-next v6 1/2] nfc: llcp_core: Hold a ref to llcp_local->dev when holding a ref to llcp_local
On Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:09:00 +0530, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> On 17/12/2023 14:11, Siddh Raman Pant wrote:
> > static struct nfc_llcp_sock *nfc_llcp_sock_get(struct nfc_llcp_local *local,
> > @@ -959,8 +974,18 @@ static void nfc_llcp_recv_connect(struct nfc_llcp_local *local,
> > }
> >
> > new_sock = nfc_llcp_sock(new_sk);
> > - new_sock->dev = local->dev;
> > +
> > new_sock->local = nfc_llcp_local_get(local);
> > + if (!new_sock->local) {
> > + reason = LLCP_DM_REJ;
> > + release_sock(&sock->sk);
> > + sock_put(&sock->sk);
> > + sock_put(&new_sock->sk);
>
> Why is this needed? Which part earlier gets the reference?

Thanks for pointing out. sk_init sets refcount to 1. Actually on a
further look, the next line shouldn't be there as nfc_llcp_sock_free()
is already called in sk->sk_destruct (== llcp_sock_destruct()), which
is called via __sk_destruct().

As sock_put() -> sk_free() -> __sk_destruct() -> sk_prot_free(),
so we need to put.

TBH really don't know why nfc_llcp_sock_free() is not static.

> > + nfc_llcp_sock_free(new_sock);
>
> This order is still wrong. Unwinding is almost always done in reversed
> order, for good reasons. Why do you unwind in other order?

Oops, extremely sorry about that :( I reverted back to wrong ordering
from an older local commit and didn't check.

I'll send the fixed one.

Thanks,
Siddh

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-12-18 19:59    [from the cache]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and my Meterkast|Read the blog