From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:01:49 +0100

quoted text
> David Miller a écrit :
> > From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> > Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 17:20:14 -0800 (PST)
> > 
> >> From: Eric Dumazet <dada1@cosmosbay.com>
> >> Date: Sun, 23 Nov 2008 04:32:30 +0100
> >>
> >>> [PATCH] net: make sock_prot_inuse_add() preempt safe
> >  ...
> >> Eric, you added this bug by starting to use this interface in
> >> situations where BH's were not disabled.
> >>
> >> Ever existing use adhered to that rule.
> >>
> >> If you therefore want to call this interface in new locations,
> >> you have to make sure those locations follow the rule too.
> > Here is what I commited to fix this bug.
> > net: Make sure BHs are disabled in sock_prot_inuse_add()
> > The rule of calling sock_prot_inuse_add() is that BHs must
> > be disabled.  Some new calls were added where this was not
> > true and this tiggers warnings as reported by Ilpo.
> > Fix this by adding explicit BH disabling around those call sites.
> > Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
> > ---
> >  net/netlink/af_netlink.c |    3 +++
> >  net/sctp/socket.c        |    4 ++++
> >  net/unix/af_unix.c       |    2 ++
> >  3 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> 
> I believe some bits are missing
> 
> Ilpo report was about unix_create1() being preemptable for example

Thanks for catching that oversight, applied.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html