Commit 3848ec5d authored by Cong Wang's avatar Cong Wang Committed by David S. Miller

af_unix: remove redundant lockdep class

After commit 581319c5 ("net/socket: use per af lockdep classes for sk queues")
sock queue locks now have per-af lockdep classes, including unix socket.
It is no longer necessary to workaround it.

I noticed this while looking at a syzbot deadlock report, this patch
itself doesn't fix it (this is why I don't add Reported-by).

Fixes: 581319c5 ("net/socket: use per af lockdep classes for sk queues")
Cc: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarCong Wang <xiyou.wangcong@gmail.com>
Acked-by: default avatarPaolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid S. Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
parent 51508179
...@@ -745,14 +745,6 @@ static struct proto unix_proto = { ...@@ -745,14 +745,6 @@ static struct proto unix_proto = {
.obj_size = sizeof(struct unix_sock), .obj_size = sizeof(struct unix_sock),
}; };
/*
* AF_UNIX sockets do not interact with hardware, hence they
* dont trigger interrupts - so it's safe for them to have
* bh-unsafe locking for their sk_receive_queue.lock. Split off
* this special lock-class by reinitializing the spinlock key:
*/
static struct lock_class_key af_unix_sk_receive_queue_lock_key;
static struct sock *unix_create1(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int kern) static struct sock *unix_create1(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int kern)
{ {
struct sock *sk = NULL; struct sock *sk = NULL;
...@@ -767,8 +759,6 @@ static struct sock *unix_create1(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int kern) ...@@ -767,8 +759,6 @@ static struct sock *unix_create1(struct net *net, struct socket *sock, int kern)
goto out; goto out;
sock_init_data(sock, sk); sock_init_data(sock, sk);
lockdep_set_class(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock,
&af_unix_sk_receive_queue_lock_key);
sk->sk_allocation = GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT; sk->sk_allocation = GFP_KERNEL_ACCOUNT;
sk->sk_write_space = unix_write_space; sk->sk_write_space = unix_write_space;
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment