Hi Satayam, > > > (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.
does this mean we should revert previous changes to the locking or only apply this on top of it? Regards Marcel - 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
