[PATCH net-next v2 3/5] net: Move IP_ROUTER_ALERT out of lock_sock(sk)

[Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>]

ip_ra_control() does not need sk_lock. Who are the another
users of ip_ra_chain? ip_mroute_setsockopt() doesn't take
sk_lock, while parallel IP_ROUTER_ALERT syscalls are
synchronized by ip_ra_lock. So, we may move this command
out of sk_lock.

Signed-off-by: Kirill Tkhai <ktkhai@virtuozzo.com>
---
 net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c |    5 ++---
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c
index b7bac7351409..bf5f44b27b7e 100644
--- a/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c
+++ b/net/ipv4/ip_sockglue.c
@@ -646,6 +646,8 @@ static int do_ip_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level,
 
 	/* If optlen==0, it is equivalent to val == 0 */
 
+	if (optname == IP_ROUTER_ALERT)
+		return ip_ra_control(sk, val ? 1 : 0, NULL);
 	if (ip_mroute_opt(optname))
 		return ip_mroute_setsockopt(sk, optname, optval, optlen);
 
@@ -1156,9 +1158,6 @@ static int do_ip_setsockopt(struct sock *sk, int level,
 			goto e_inval;
 		inet->mc_all = val;
 		break;
-	case IP_ROUTER_ALERT:
-		err = ip_ra_control(sk, val ? 1 : 0, NULL);
-		break;
 
 	case IP_FREEBIND:
 		if (optlen < 1)