[PATCH net-next 22/35] rxrpc: Don't use sk->sk_receive_queue.lock to guard socket state changes
From: David Howells
Date: Wed Nov 30 2022 - 12:00:45 EST
Don't use sk->sk_receive_queue.lock to guard socket state changes as the
socket mutex is sufficient.
Signed-off-by: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
cc: Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
cc: linux-afs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
---
net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c | 4 ----
1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c b/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c
index 7a0dc01741e7..8ad4d85acb0b 100644
--- a/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c
+++ b/net/rxrpc/af_rxrpc.c
@@ -812,14 +812,12 @@ static int rxrpc_shutdown(struct socket *sock, int flags)
lock_sock(sk);
- spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
if (sk->sk_state < RXRPC_CLOSE) {
sk->sk_state = RXRPC_CLOSE;
sk->sk_shutdown = SHUTDOWN_MASK;
} else {
ret = -ESHUTDOWN;
}
- spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
rxrpc_discard_prealloc(rx);
@@ -872,9 +870,7 @@ static int rxrpc_release_sock(struct sock *sk)
break;
}
- spin_lock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
sk->sk_state = RXRPC_CLOSE;
- spin_unlock_bh(&sk->sk_receive_queue.lock);
if (rx->local && rcu_access_pointer(rx->local->service) == rx) {
write_lock(&rx->local->services_lock);