From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett <josh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] OSS: soundcard: locking bug in sound_ioctl()
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 12:52:06 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1286794326.3634.13.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201010111250.16299.arnd@arndb.de>
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 12:50 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2010, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 10:13 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, actually sparse does not warn about sound_ioctl returning in
> > > different lock contexts. Sparse developers: is there a known limitation
> > > in sparse for this? I expected to see context warnings because
> > > sound_ioctl normally releases soundcard_mutex (previously lock_kernel)
> > > in some cases returns while holding the lock.
> >
> > Arnd, mutexes aren't annotated in the kernel source to make use of
> > sparse's context checking.
>
> D'oh. I never realized this was only done for some types of locks.
> Is there a reason why we don't want mutexes to be annotated or do
> we just need someone to do it?
I don't know. Could be related to trylock issues, could be just historic
since semaphores can't really be annotated, or could be something else
entirely... I would expect a huge amount of warnings from sparse though
if you "just" annotate them since there are things like rtnl_lock()
which would have to propagate context.
johannes
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Johannes Berg <johannes@sipsolutions.net>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <error27@gmail.com>,
Jaroslav Kysela <perex@perex.cz>, Takashi Iwai <tiwai@suse.de>,
alsa-devel@alsa-project.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett <josh@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 1/2] OSS: soundcard: locking bug in sound_ioctl()
Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:52:06 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1286794326.3634.13.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <201010111250.16299.arnd@arndb.de>
On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 12:50 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Monday 11 October 2010, Johannes Berg wrote:
> > On Mon, 2010-10-11 at 10:13 +0200, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> >
> > > Hmm, actually sparse does not warn about sound_ioctl returning in
> > > different lock contexts. Sparse developers: is there a known limitation
> > > in sparse for this? I expected to see context warnings because
> > > sound_ioctl normally releases soundcard_mutex (previously lock_kernel)
> > > in some cases returns while holding the lock.
> >
> > Arnd, mutexes aren't annotated in the kernel source to make use of
> > sparse's context checking.
>
> D'oh. I never realized this was only done for some types of locks.
> Is there a reason why we don't want mutexes to be annotated or do
> we just need someone to do it?
I don't know. Could be related to trylock issues, could be just historic
since semaphores can't really be annotated, or could be something else
entirely... I would expect a huge amount of warnings from sparse though
if you "just" annotate them since there are things like rtnl_lock()
which would have to propagate context.
johannes
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-11 10:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-10 17:33 [patch 1/2] OSS: soundcard: locking bug in sound_ioctl() Dan Carpenter
2010-10-10 17:33 ` Dan Carpenter
2010-10-10 18:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-10 18:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-11 8:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-11 8:13 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-11 8:50 ` Johannes Berg
2010-10-11 8:50 ` Johannes Berg
2010-10-11 10:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-11 10:50 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-11 10:52 ` Johannes Berg [this message]
2010-10-11 10:52 ` Johannes Berg
2010-10-11 18:54 ` Josh Triplett
2010-10-11 18:54 ` Josh Triplett
2010-10-11 20:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-11 20:42 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-11 22:23 ` Josh Triplett
2010-10-11 22:23 ` Josh Triplett
2010-10-12 6:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-12 6:39 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-12 6:43 ` Josh Triplett
2010-10-12 6:43 ` Josh Triplett
2010-10-11 11:59 ` Takashi Iwai
2010-10-11 11:59 ` Takashi Iwai
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1286794326.3634.13.camel@jlt3.sipsolutions.net \
--to=johannes@sipsolutions.net \
--cc=alsa-devel@alsa-project.org \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=error27@gmail.com \
--cc=josh@kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-sparse@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=perex@perex.cz \
--cc=tiwai@suse.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.