svcrpc: make svc_age_temp_xprts enqueue under sv_lock

svc_age_temp_xprts expires xprts in a two-step process: first it takes
the sv_lock and moves the xprts to expire off their server-wide list
(sv_tempsocks or sv_permsocks) to a local list.  Then it drops the
sv_lock and enqueues and puts each one.

I see no reason for this: svc_xprt_enqueue() will take sp_lock, but the
sv_lock and sp_lock are not otherwise nested anywhere (and documentation
at the top of this file claims it's correct to nest these with sp_lock
inside.)

Cc: stable@kernel.org
Tested-by: Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@math.uh.edu>
Tested-by: Paweł Sikora <pawel.sikora@agmk.net>
Signed-off-by: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@redhat.com>

net/sunrpc/svc_xprt.c

@@ -863,7 +863,6 @@ static void svc_age_temp_xprts(unsigned long closure)
 	struct svc_serv *serv = (struct svc_serv *)closure;
 	struct svc_xprt *xprt;
 	struct list_head *le, *next;
-	LIST_HEAD(to_be_aged);
 
 	dprintk("svc_age_temp_xprts\n");
 
@@ -884,25 +883,15 @@ static void svc_age_temp_xprts(unsigned long closure)
 		if (atomic_read(&xprt->xpt_ref.refcount) > 1 ||
 		    test_bit(XPT_BUSY, &xprt->xpt_flags))
 			continue;
-		svc_xprt_get(xprt);
-		list_move(le, &to_be_aged);
+		list_del_init(le);
 		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &xprt->xpt_flags);
 		set_bit(XPT_DETACHED, &xprt->xpt_flags);
-	}
-	spin_unlock_bh(&serv->sv_lock);
-
-	while (!list_empty(&to_be_aged)) {
-		le = to_be_aged.next;
-		/* fiddling the xpt_list node is safe 'cos we're XPT_DETACHED */
-		list_del_init(le);
-		xprt = list_entry(le, struct svc_xprt, xpt_list);
-
 		dprintk("queuing xprt %p for closing\n", xprt);
 
 		/* a thread will dequeue and close it soon */
 		svc_xprt_enqueue(xprt);
-		svc_xprt_put(xprt);
 	}
+	spin_unlock_bh(&serv->sv_lock);
 
 	mod_timer(&serv->sv_temptimer, jiffies + svc_conn_age_period * HZ);
 }