Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix socket not getting freed if l2cap channel create fails

Hi Andrei,

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Andrei Emeltchenko" <redacted>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 5:10 PM
To: "Jaganath Kanakkassery" <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>; "Johan Hedberg" 
[off-list ref]; "Gustavo Padovan" [off-list ref]
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix socket not getting freed if l2cap 
channel create fails

Hi Jaganath,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 04:50:16PM +0530, Jaganath Kanakkassery wrote:

quoted

Hi Andrei,

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Andrei Emeltchenko" <redacted>
Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 1:22 PM
To: "Jaganath Kanakkassery" <redacted>
Cc: <redacted>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: Fix socket not getting freed if
l2cap channel create fails

quoted

Hi Jaganath,

On Thu, Jul 19, 2012 at 12:54:04PM +0530, Jaganath Kanakkassery wrote:

quoted

If l2cap_chan_create() fails then it will return from l2cap_sock_kill
since zapped flag of sk is reset.

Signed-off-by: Jaganath Kanakkassery <redacted>
---
net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c |    2 +-
1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
index 79350d1..419857d 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/l2cap_sock.c

@@ -1174,7 +1174,7 @@ static struct sock

*l2cap_sock_alloc(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int p

chan = l2cap_chan_create();
if (!chan) {
- l2cap_sock_kill(sk);
+ sk_free(sk);

Could you consider using sock_put which will call sk_free,
maybe we need to add also sock_orphan?

Ok, Actually I used sk_free since there is not refcount increase at
this point

Have you tested it? It shall be 1, set by sock_init_data.

Yes it is 1. So even if we use sock_put() , it will decrement the refcount
and call sk_free().

quoted

and also I found the same code in rfcomm_sock_alloc().
So should I fix it in RFCOMM also?

I think using sock_put would be the right approach. Maybe maintainers
could comment here?

Ok, I will wait for maintainers comments.

Thanks,
Jaganath