From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 16:45:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 16:45:42 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:21256 "HELO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Mon, 14 May 2001 16:45:32 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 22:45:08 +0200 From: Andi Kleen To: mostrows@speakeasy.net Cc: Marcell GAL , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, paulus@samba.org, "David S. Miller" Subject: Re: Scheduling in interrupt BUG. [Patch] Message-ID: <20010514224508.A3960@gruyere.muc.suse.de> In-Reply-To: <3AFFBF14.7D7BAB01@sch.bme.hu> <15103.53345.869090.593925@slug.watson.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <15103.53345.869090.593925@slug.watson.ibm.com>; from mostrows@us.ibm.com on Mon, May 14, 2001 at 08:32:33AM -0400 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, May 14, 2001 at 08:32:33AM -0400, Michal Ostrowski wrote: > Having looked at the code for locking sockets I am concerned that the > locking procedures for tcp may be wrong. __release_sock releases the > socket spinlock before calling sk->backlog_rcv() (== tcp_v4_do_rcv), > however the comments at the top of tcp_v4_do_rcv() assert that the > socket's spinlock is held (which is definitely not the case). > > Anybody care to comment on this? Looks ok for me. The user socket lock (lock.users>0) is held while __release_sock runs, which is also sufficient to protect it as all new packets will go into backlog. The spinlock comment only applies to bottom halves. -Andi