From c7355827b27c550824bbcc1f0586cf993bf83d94 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "tsutomu.owa@toshiba.co.jp" Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2017 08:56:00 +0000 Subject: 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 Signed-off-by: Tsutomu Owa Signed-off-by: David Teigland --- fs/dlm/lowcomms.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) (limited to 'fs/dlm') diff --git a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c index 420946dcb7ca..b275813c9901 100644 --- a/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c +++ b/fs/dlm/lowcomms.c @@ -801,16 +801,19 @@ static int tcp_accept_from_sock(struct connection *con) 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 @@ static int sctp_accept_from_sock(struct connection *con) 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; } -- cgit