Re: [PATCH v2] inet: fix possible seqlock deadlocks

[Hannes Frederic Sowa]

On Thu, Nov 28, 2013 at 09:51:22AM -0800, Eric Dumazet wrote:
> From: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> 
> In commit c9e9042994d3 ("ipv4: fix possible seqlock deadlock") I left
> another places where IP_INC_STATS_BH() were improperly used.
> 
> udp_sendmsg(), ping_v4_sendmsg() and tcp_v4_connect() are called from
> process context, not from softirq context.
> 
> This was detected by lockdep seqlock support.
> 
> Reported-by: jongman heo <jongman.heo@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> Fixes: 584bdf8cbdf6 ("[IPV4]: Fix "ipOutNoRoutes" counter error for TCP and UDP")
> Fixes: c319b4d76b9e ("net: ipv4: add IPPROTO_ICMP socket kind")
> Signed-off-by: Eric Dumazet <edumazet@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Just got home after getting distracted with other things today and the work is
already done. Thanks, Eric! ;)

Exactly the spots I noticed this morning, so

Acked-by: Hannes Frederic Sowa <hannes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Should we do something about the naming? I find it rather dangerous because
they look like the _bh lock postfixes but act exactly in the opposite?

Greetings,

  Hannes

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/