On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 21:17:42 -0400
Kevin Winchester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Note also that in the release method, down_interruptible() was being called
> without checking the return value. I converted it to
> mutex_lock_interruptible()
> and made the interrupted case return -ERESTARTSYS, as was done for all other
> calls to down_interruptible() in the file.
That's an outright bug.
static int release(struct socket *sock)
{
struct tipc_sock *tsock = tipc_sk(sock->sk);
struct sock *sk = sock->sk;
int res = TIPC_OK;
struct sk_buff *buf;
dbg("sock_delete: %x\n",tsock);
if (!tsock)
return 0;
down_interruptible(&tsock->sem);
if (!sock->sk) {
up(&tsock->sem);
return 0;
}
...
up(&tsock->sem);
...
}
So if the calling process has signal_pending(), down_interruptible() will
return without having downed the semaphore and then we merrily proceed to
do up() on it, so a subsequent down() won't actually take the lock and
things will deteriorate from there.
So I'd propose this:
--- a/net/tipc/socket.c~a
+++ a/net/tipc/socket.c
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static int release(struct socket *sock)
dbg("sock_delete: %x\n",tsock);
if (!tsock)
return 0;
- down_interruptible(&tsock->sem);
+ down(&tsock->sem);
if (!sock->sk) {
up(&tsock->sem);
return 0;
_
as a for-2.6.24 bugfix. And for 2.6.23. But someone who knows what
they're doing should take a look at this...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by:
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
tipc-discussion mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/tipc-discussion
