Hi Marcel,
[...]
> > > > (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?
I've fixed a simple patch on top of 2.6.22-rc1 below.