All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com>
Cc: devel@driverdev.osuosl.org, Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@gmail.com>,
	driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Staging: dgnc: release the lock before testing for nullity
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 13:54:02 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150318135402.GU16501@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <550980E5.8080001@gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:43:01PM +0100, Quentin Lambert wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/03/2015 14:36, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >This changelog still doesn't make sense so I took a look at the code.
> >
> >tty_ldisc_deref() is an unlock function.  So this is a lock ordering
> >bug.  What makes you think the original ordering was correct?  Who
> >reported this bug?  What are the effects of this bug?
> I was the one who introduced the ordering change in the first place.
> I am just trying to fix it because although nobody complained I am not
> sure of the impact and restoring the previous control flow seems to be the
> right thing to do.

Your changelog should tell me this stuff.

The original code is wrong.  We take "spin_lock_irqsave(&ch->ch_lock,
flags);" before we do "ld = tty_ldisc_ref(tp);" so we should deref
before we unlock.

It's normally:

lock_outer();
lock_inner();
unlock_inner();
unlock_outer();

On the success path we unlock first then deref and that is a mistake.

This kind of change is a bit dangerous though so it requires testing.

regards,
dan carpenter

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
To: Quentin Lambert <lambert.quentin@gmail.com>
Cc: Lidza Louina <lidza.louina@gmail.com>,
	devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org,
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Staging: dgnc: release the lock before testing for nullity
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2015 16:54:02 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150318135402.GU16501@mwanda> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <550980E5.8080001@gmail.com>

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 02:43:01PM +0100, Quentin Lambert wrote:
> 
> 
> On 18/03/2015 14:36, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> >This changelog still doesn't make sense so I took a look at the code.
> >
> >tty_ldisc_deref() is an unlock function.  So this is a lock ordering
> >bug.  What makes you think the original ordering was correct?  Who
> >reported this bug?  What are the effects of this bug?
> I was the one who introduced the ordering change in the first place.
> I am just trying to fix it because although nobody complained I am not
> sure of the impact and restoring the previous control flow seems to be the
> right thing to do.

Your changelog should tell me this stuff.

The original code is wrong.  We take "spin_lock_irqsave(&ch->ch_lock,
flags);" before we do "ld = tty_ldisc_ref(tp);" so we should deref
before we unlock.

It's normally:

lock_outer();
lock_inner();
unlock_inner();
unlock_outer();

On the success path we unlock first then deref and that is a mistake.

This kind of change is a bit dangerous though so it requires testing.

regards,
dan carpenter

  reply	other threads:[~2015-03-18 13:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-03-18 13:21 [PATCH v2] Staging: dgnc: release the lock before testing for nullity Quentin Lambert
2015-03-18 13:21 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-03-18 13:36 ` Dan Carpenter
2015-03-18 13:36   ` Dan Carpenter
2015-03-18 13:43   ` Quentin Lambert
2015-03-18 13:43     ` Quentin Lambert
2015-03-18 13:54     ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2015-03-18 13:54       ` Dan Carpenter
2015-03-18 13:59       ` Quentin Lambert
2015-03-18 13:59         ` Quentin Lambert
2015-03-18 14:03         ` Dan Carpenter
2015-03-18 14:03           ` Dan Carpenter

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=20150318135402.GU16501@mwanda \
    --to=dan.carpenter@oracle.com \
    --cc=devel@driverdev.osuosl.org \
    --cc=driverdev-devel@linuxdriverproject.org \
    --cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=lambert.quentin@gmail.com \
    --cc=lidza.louina@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    /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.