[AX25]: Locking dependencies fix in ax25_disconnect().

Bernard Pidoux reported these lockdep warnings:

[ INFO: possible irq lock inversion dependency detected ]
2.6.23.1 #1
---------------------------------------------------------
fpac/4933 just changed the state of lock:
 (slock-AF_AX25){--..}, at: [<d8be3312>] ax25_disconnect+0x46/0xaf
 [ax25]
 but this lock was taken by another, soft-irq-safe lock in the past:
  (ax25_list_lock){-+..}

  and interrupts could create inverse lock ordering between them.
  [...]

[ INFO: inconsistent lock state ]
2.6.23.1 #1
---------------------------------
inconsistent {in-softirq-W} -> {softirq-on-W} usage.
ax25_call/4005 [HC0[0]:SC0[0]:HE1:SE1] takes:
 (slock-AF_AX25){-+..}, at: [<d8b79312>] ax25_disconnect+0x46/0xaf [ax25]
 [...]

This means slock-AF_AX25 could be taken both from softirq and process
context with softirqs enabled, so it's endangered itself, but also makes
ax25_list_lock vulnerable. It was not 100% verified if the real lockup
can happen, but this fix isn't very costly and looks safe anyway.
(It was tested by Bernard with 2.6.23.9 and 2.6.24-rc5 kernels.)


Reported_by: Bernard Pidoux <pidoux@ccr.jussieu.fr>
Tested_by: Bernard Pidoux <pidoux@ccr.jussieu.fr>
Signed-off-by: Jarek Poplawski <jarkao2@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: David S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>

net/ax25/ax25_subr.c

@@ -279,6 +279,7 @@ void ax25_disconnect(ax25_cb *ax25, int reason)
 	ax25_link_failed(ax25, reason);
 
 	if (ax25->sk != NULL) {
+		local_bh_disable();
 		bh_lock_sock(ax25->sk);
 		ax25->sk->sk_state     = TCP_CLOSE;
 		ax25->sk->sk_err       = reason;
@@ -288,5 +289,6 @@ void ax25_disconnect(ax25_cb *ax25, int reason)
 			sock_set_flag(ax25->sk, SOCK_DEAD);
 		}
 		bh_unlock_sock(ax25->sk);
+		local_bh_enable();
 	}
 }