From: Daniel Scheller <d.scheller.oss@gmail.com>
To: Ralph Metzler <rjkm@metzlerbros.de>
Cc: linux-media@vger.kernel.org, mchehab@kernel.org,
mchehab@s-opensource.com, jasmin@anw.at
Subject: Re: [PATCH] [media] dvb-frontends/stv0910: prevent consecutive mutex_unlock()'s
Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:57:57 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171021115757.729e000f@audiostation.wuest.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <23019.4906.236885.50919@morden.metzler>
Am Sat, 21 Oct 2017 11:28:10 +0200
schrieb Ralph Metzler <rjkm@metzlerbros.de>:
> Daniel Scheller writes:
> > From: Daniel Scheller <d.scheller@gmx.net>
> >
> > When calling gate_ctrl() with enable=0 if previously the mutex
> > wasn't locked (ie. on enable=1 failure and subdrivers not handling
> > this properly, or by otherwise badly behaving drivers), the
> > i2c_lock could be unlocked
>
> I think drivers and subdrivers should rather be fixed so that this
> cannot happen.
As long as stv6111 remains the only chip/driver interfacing with the
stv0910, that's an easy task. However, if other hardware has some other
stv0910+tunerchip combination, things get interesting. In a perfect
world with unicorns and such, every component interacts as intended,
but that's not the case, so I believe this should be handled at the
root.
> But to do this we will first need to define exactly how a failure in
> gate_ctrl() is supposed to be handled, both inside gate_ctrl() and
> by calling drivers.
Well, IMHO (and thats the intention) if gate_ctrl fails due to a
hardware/I2C problem, it isn't opened so there's no need to hold the
lock (since the gate isn't - exclusively - opened). For reasons stated
above this keeps things safe from deadlocking (and we want to avoid
that, even more than double unlocking).
> > consecutively which isn't allowed. Prevent this by keeping track
> > of the lock state, and actually call mutex_unlock() only when
> > certain the lock is held.
>
> Why not use mutex_is_locked()?
Good catch (I should try harder finding out what the kernel API has to
offer...). If you prefer that, I'll respin with this and without the
var as v2.
> And there should be a debug message if it (tried double unlocking)
> happens.
Ok. Should IMHO go to dev_dbg then - if drivers don't catch that
situation, this may else lead do kernel log spam.
Best regards,
Daniel Scheller
--
https://github.com/herrnst
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-10-21 9:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-10-21 8:36 [PATCH] [media] dvb-frontends/stv0910: prevent consecutive mutex_unlock()'s Daniel Scheller
2017-10-21 9:28 ` Ralph Metzler
2017-10-21 9:57 ` Daniel Scheller [this message]
2017-11-07 9:50 ` Mauro Carvalho Chehab
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=20171021115757.729e000f@audiostation.wuest.de \
--to=d.scheller.oss@gmail.com \
--cc=jasmin@anw.at \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@s-opensource.com \
--cc=rjkm@metzlerbros.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox