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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-03-18 13:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ 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 13:36 ` Dan Carpenter
2015-03-18 13:43 ` Quentin Lambert
2015-03-18 13:54 ` Dan Carpenter [this message]
2015-03-18 13:59 ` Quentin Lambert
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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).