DLM: fix to use sock_mutex correctly in xxx_accept_from_sock
In the current implementation, we think that exclusion control
for othercon in tcp_accept_from_sock() and sctp_accept_from_sock()
was not enough. We fix them.
Signed-off-by: Tadashi Miyauchi <miyauchi@toshiba-tops.co.jp>
Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Owa <tsutomu.owa@toshiba.co.jp>
Signed-off-by: David Teigland <teigland@redhat.com>
diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
index 420946d..b275813 100644
--- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
+++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c
@@ -801,16 +801,19 @@
INIT_WORK(&othercon->rwork, process_recv_sockets);
set_bit(CF_IS_OTHERCON, &othercon->flags);
}
+ mutex_lock_nested(&othercon->sock_mutex, 2);
if (!othercon->sock) {
newcon->othercon = othercon;
othercon->sock = newsock;
newsock->sk->sk_user_data = othercon;
add_sock(newsock, othercon);
addcon = othercon;
+ mutex_unlock(&othercon->sock_mutex);
}
else {
printk("Extra connection from node %d attempted\n", nodeid);
result = -EAGAIN;
+ mutex_unlock(&othercon->sock_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&newcon->sock_mutex);
goto accept_err;
}
@@ -918,15 +921,18 @@
INIT_WORK(&othercon->rwork, process_recv_sockets);
set_bit(CF_IS_OTHERCON, &othercon->flags);
}
+ mutex_lock_nested(&othercon->sock_mutex, 2);
if (!othercon->sock) {
newcon->othercon = othercon;
othercon->sock = newsock;
newsock->sk->sk_user_data = othercon;
add_sock(newsock, othercon);
addcon = othercon;
+ mutex_unlock(&othercon->sock_mutex);
} else {
printk("Extra connection from node %d attempted\n", nodeid);
ret = -EAGAIN;
+ mutex_unlock(&othercon->sock_mutex);
mutex_unlock(&newcon->sock_mutex);
goto accept_err;
}