Re: [Bug #14388] keyboard under X with 2.6.31

Dmitry Torokhov
2009-10-13T09:17:25Z

On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 11:19:05AM +0300, Boyan wrote:
> Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>>
>>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>> [ Alan, Paulkf - the tty buffering and locking is originally your code,
>>>> although from about three years ago, when it used to be in tty_io.c..
>>>> Any comment? ]
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Alan, Ogawa-san, do either of you see some problem in tty_buffer.c,
>>>>> perhaps?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hmm. I see one, at least.
>>>>
>>>> The "tty_insert_flip_string()" locking seems totally bogus.
>>>>
>>>> It does that "tty_buffer_request_room()" call and subsequent
>>>> copying with
>>>> no locking at all - sure, the tty_buffer_request_room() function itself
>>>> locks the buffers, but then unlocks it when returning, so when we
>>>> actually
>>>> do the memcpy() etc, we can race with anybody.
>>>>
>>>> I don't really see who would care, but it does look totally broken.
>>>>
>>>> I dunno, this patch seems to make sense to me. Am I missing something?
>>>>
>>>> [ NOTE! The patch is totally untested. It compiled for me on x86-64, and
>>>> apart from that I'm just going to say that it looks obvious, and
>>>> the old
>>>> code looks obviously buggy. Also, any remaining users of
>>>>
>>>> tty_prepare_flip_string
>>>> tty_prepare_flip_string_flags
>>>>
>>>> are still fundamentally broken and buggy, while users of
>>>>
>>>> tty_buffer_request_room
>>>>
>>>> are pretty damn odd and suspect (but a lot of them seem to be just
>>>> pointless: they then call tty_insert_flip_string(), which means
>>>> that the
>>>> tty_buffer_request_room() call was totally redundant ]
>>>>
>>>> Comments? Does this work? Does it make any difference? It seems fairly
>>>> unlikely, but it's the only obvious problem I've seen in the tty
>>>> buffering
>>>> code so far.
>>>>
>>>> And that code is literally 3 years old, and it seems unlikely that a
>>>> regular _keyboard_ buffer would be able to hit the (rather small) race
>>>> condition. But other serialization may have hidden it, and timing
>>>> differences could certainly have caused it to trigger much more easily.
>>>>
>>>> Linus
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> drivers/char/tty_buffer.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>>> 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c b/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
>>>> index 3108991..25ab538 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
>>>> @@ -196,13 +196,10 @@ static struct tty_buffer
>>>> *tty_buffer_find(struct tty_struct *tty, size_t size)
>>>> *
>>>> * Locking: Takes tty->buf.lock
>>>> */
>>>> -int tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct *tty, size_t size)
>>>> +static int locked_tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct *tty,
>>>> size_t size)
>>>> {
>>>> struct tty_buffer *b, *n;
>>>> int left;
>>>> - unsigned long flags;
>>>> -
>>>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>>>
>>>> /* OPTIMISATION: We could keep a per tty "zero" sized buffer to
>>>> remove this conditional if its worth it. This would be
>>>> invisible
>>>> @@ -225,9 +222,20 @@ int tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct
>>>> *tty, size_t size)
>>>> size = left;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>>> return size;
>>>> }
>>>> +
>>>> +int tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct *tty, size_t size)
>>>> +{
>>>> + int retval;
>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>>> + retval = locked_tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size);
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>>> + return retval;
>>>> +}
>>>> +
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tty_buffer_request_room);
>>>>
>>>> /**
>>>> @@ -239,16 +247,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tty_buffer_request_room);
>>>> * Queue a series of bytes to the tty buffering. All the characters
>>>> * passed are marked as without error. Returns the number added.
>>>> *
>>>> - * Locking: Called functions may take tty->buf.lock
>>>> + * Locking: We take tty->buf.lock
>>>> */
>>>>
>>>> int tty_insert_flip_string(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned
>>>> char *chars,
>>>> size_t size)
>>>> {
>>>> int copied = 0;
>>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>>> do {
>>>> - int space = tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>>> + int space = locked_tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>>> struct tty_buffer *tb = tty->buf.tail;
>>>> +
>>>> /* If there is no space then tb may be NULL */
>>>> if (unlikely(space == 0))
>>>> break;
>>>> @@ -260,6 +272,7 @@ int tty_insert_flip_string(struct tty_struct
>>>> *tty, const unsigned char *chars,
>>>> /* There is a small chance that we need to split the data over
>>>> several buffers. If this is the case we must loop */
>>>> } while (unlikely(size> copied));
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>>> return copied;
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_insert_flip_string);
>>>> @@ -282,8 +295,11 @@ int tty_insert_flip_string_flags(struct
>>>> tty_struct *tty,
>>>> const unsigned char *chars, const char *flags, size_t size)
>>>> {
>>>> int copied = 0;
>>>> + unsigned long irqflags;
>>>> +
>>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, irqflags);
>>>> do {
>>>> - int space = tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>>> + int space = locked_tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>>> struct tty_buffer *tb = tty->buf.tail;
>>>> /* If there is no space then tb may be NULL */
>>>> if (unlikely(space == 0))
>>>> @@ -297,6 +313,7 @@ int tty_insert_flip_string_flags(struct
>>>> tty_struct *tty,
>>>> /* There is a small chance that we need to split the data over
>>>> several buffers. If this is the case we must loop */
>>>> } while (unlikely(size> copied));
>>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, irqflags);
>>>> return copied;
>>>> }
>>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_insert_flip_string_flags);
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I can throw your patch in over here for the heck of it.
>>> If there's somebody who's really hitting this bug
>>> then the results would be better if this is the area that causing
>>> this bug.(from here the only issue I'm seeing is spinning
>>> history commands in the terminal from time to time,
>>> nothing of any unusable keys like others are reporting).
>>
>> I tested it on top of 2.6.31.4 (after putting back
>> e043e42bdb66885b3ac10d27a01ccb9972e2b0a3), and the keyboard is fine
>> after almost 3h. Before that, the problems would appear in less than
>> 1h. Maybe I spoke too soon, but...
>>
>> Boyan, does it work for you ?
>>
>
> I've just tested it on top of 2.6.31.3 and it doesn't work. As I've
> mentioned in previous email - I usually trigger the problem easily
> watching pictures with gthumb - this is combination of cpu intensive
> operations and keyboard usage and if it doesn't work it takes me no more
> than a minute to trigger the problem.
>
> I thought the problem may be more easily triggered because of the newer
> (1.6.4 RC) in fedora which is slower for my ati radeon cards, but now
> I'm with older version 1.6.1.901 which is fine in speed - so it doesn't
> matter what is the version of X.

Can you reporoduce it in console while loading the CPU?

--
Dmitry