[GIT PATCH] TTY/Serial fixes for 3.12-rc4

[GIT PATCH] TTY/Serial fixes for 3.12-rc4

[Greg KH]

The following changes since commit 15c03dd4859ab16f9212238f29dd315654aa94f6:

  Linux 3.12-rc3 (2013-09-29 15:02:38 -0700)

are available in the git repository at:

  git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/tty.git/ tags/tty-3.12-rc4

for you to fetch changes up to a9fbf4d591da6cd1d3eaab826c7c15f77fc8f6a3:

  xen/hvc: allow xenboot console to be used again (2013-10-03 16:12:58 -0700)

----------------------------------------------------------------
TTY fixes for 3.12-rc4

Here are 2 tty driver fixes for 3.12-rc4.

One fixes the reported regression in the n_tty code that a number of
people found recently, and the other one fixes an issue with xen
consoles that broke in 3.10.

Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

----------------------------------------------------------------
David Vrabel (1):
      xen/hvc: allow xenboot console to be used again

Peter Hurley (1):
      tty: Fix pty master read() after slave closes

 drivers/tty/hvc/hvc_xen.c |  1 +
 drivers/tty/n_tty.c       | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
 2 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)

Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY/Serial fixes for 3.12-rc4

[Linus Torvalds]

On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> One fixes the reported regression in the n_tty code that a number of
> people found recently

That one looks broken.

Well, it looks like it might "work", but do so by hiding the issue for
one case, while leaving it in the more general case.

Why does it do that

    up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
    tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty);
    down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);

only if TTY_OTHER_CLOSED is set? If flushing the ldisc can generate
more data, then we should do it *unconditionally* when we see that we
currently have no data to read.

As it is, it looks like the patch fixes the TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case
("read all pending data before returning -EIO"), but it leaves the
same broken case for the O_NONBLOCK case and for a hung up tty.

The O_NONBLOCK case is presumably just a performance problem (the data
will come at _some_ point later), but it just looks bad in general.
And the tty_hung_up_p() looks actiely buggy, with the same bug as the
TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case that the patch tried to fix.

Hmm? Am I missing something?

The code is a bit confusing in *other* ways too: if you look later, it
does this:

    n_tty_set_room(tty);

which is documented to have to happen inside the termios_rwsem.
HOWEVER, what does that do? It actually does an _asynchronous_
queue_work() of &tty->port->buf.work, in case there is now more room,
and the previous one was blocked. And guess what that workqueue is all
about? Right: it's flush_to_ldisc() - which is the work that
tty_flush_to_ldisc() is trying to flush. So we're actually basically
making sure we've flush the previous pending work.

So even the tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty) that gets done in that patch is
not necessarily sufficient, because the work might not have been
scheduled because the flip buffer used to be full. Then flushing the
work won't do anything, even though there is actually more data. Now,
that is a very unlikely situation (I think it requires two concurrent
readers), but it looks like it might be real.

So I suspect we should *unconditionally* do

     n_tty_set_room(tty);
     up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
     tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty);
     down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);

if we don't have any pending input. And then test input_available_p()
again. And only if we don't have any input after that flushing do we
start doing the whole TTY_OTHER_CLOSED and tty_hung_up_p() tests.

Hmm?

            Linus

Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY/Serial fixes for 3.12-rc4

[Peter Hurley]

On 10/05/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>
>> One fixes the reported regression in the n_tty code that a number of
>> people found recently
>
> That one looks broken.
>
> Well, it looks like it might "work", but do so by hiding the issue for
> one case, while leaving it in the more general case.
>
> Why does it do that
>
>      up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>      tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty);
>      down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>
> only if TTY_OTHER_CLOSED is set? If flushing the ldisc can generate
> more data, then we should do it *unconditionally* when we see that we
> currently have no data to read.
>
> As it is, it looks like the patch fixes the TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case
> ("read all pending data before returning -EIO"), but it leaves the
> same broken case for the O_NONBLOCK case and for a hung up tty.
>
> The O_NONBLOCK case is presumably just a performance problem (the data
> will come at _some_ point later), but it just looks bad in general.
> And the tty_hung_up_p() looks actiely buggy, with the same bug as the
> TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case that the patch tried to fix.
>
> Hmm? Am I missing something?

When a slave pty is closed, it's not hung up specifically so the
master pty can be read.

The same is not true for a regular tty; when a regular tty is hung up,
all the pending data is vaporized (ie., what the tty layer refers
to as 'flushed'). So checking for more data when tty_hung_up_p() is
true is pointless.

The distinction is clearer when you consider that even after the slave
pty is closed, the master pty can still be read() even if it wasn't
waiting in n_tty_read() at the time; this is not true of a regular tty, which
cannot be read() after a hangup [tty_hung_up_p() tests if the
file_operations pointer is set to non-operational read/write/ioctl functions].

The patch fixes a race condition which is peculiar to ptys only.

> The code is a bit confusing in *other* ways too: if you look later, it
> does this:
>
>      n_tty_set_room(tty);
>
> which is documented to have to happen inside the termios_rwsem.
> HOWEVER, what does that do? It actually does an _asynchronous_
> queue_work() of &tty->port->buf.work, in case there is now more room,
> and the previous one was blocked. And guess what that workqueue is all
> about? Right: it's flush_to_ldisc() - which is the work that
> tty_flush_to_ldisc() is trying to flush. So we're actually basically
> making sure we've flush the previous pending work.

The flush_to_ldisc() worker no longer re-schedules itself.

The flush_to_ldisc() worker is scheduled when one of two events
happen; 1) the driver has just written received data to the tty
buffers, or 2) space has just become available in the N_TTY line
discipline's read buffer when it was previously full.

The flush_to_ldisc() worker continues to run as long as space
is available in the line discipline's read buffer or until the
tty buffers are empty.

Concurrently with the flush_to_ldisc() worker, a reader may have
an empty read buffer; the flush_to_ldisc() worker may or may not
generate more input to be read.

Generally when a reader has an empty read buffer, it will sleep unless
one of the other conditions is met (TTY_OTHER_CLOSED, tty_hung_up_p,
non-blocking, etc).

Before sleeping, the reader will (re-)schedule the flush_to_ldisc()
worker in case it read some input on the previous loop iteration
(thus creating space in the read buffer when there was none previously).

(That doesn't preclude that flush_to_ldisc() may already be running
but isn't processing as fast as the reader is reading.)


> So even the tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty) that gets done in that patch is
> not necessarily sufficient, because the work might not have been
> scheduled because the flip buffer used to be full. Then flushing the
> work won't do anything, even though there is actually more data. Now,
> that is a very unlikely situation (I think it requires two concurrent
> readers), but it looks like it might be real.

I don't think this condition is possible for a single reader (because
the read condition will be satisfied and the reader will return).
Multiple concurrent readers are excluded by the atomic_read_lock mutex
at the the top of n_tty_read().

> So I suspect we should *unconditionally* do
>
>       n_tty_set_room(tty);
>       up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>       tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty);
>       down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>
> if we don't have any pending input. And then test input_available_p()
> again. And only if we don't have any input after that flushing do we
> start doing the whole TTY_OTHER_CLOSED and tty_hung_up_p() tests.
>
> Hmm?

flush_to_ldisc() should not be rescheduled via n_tty_set_room() after
the tty has been hung up. This will trigger the diagnostic warning that
was introduced back in 3.8 which proved that the line discipline
was still running after the tty had been released.

Maybe that's less of an issue (or a non-issue) now that the port owns
the tty buffers and drivers can push i/o without a tty.
I'll give some thought to that.

Looking at this problem at a higher level, in some situations it
would be desirable for a tty to continue to be readable after hang up
(like after carrier loss) but not in others (like exit()).
This is something I'm (kind of) working around right now in the
tty-over-firewire staging driver by delaying hangup on carrier loss.

Regards,
Peter Hurley

Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY/Serial fixes for 3.12-rc4

[Peter Hurley]

On 10/05/2013 07:57 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 10/05/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>> On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> One fixes the reported regression in the n_tty code that a number of
>>> people found recently
>>
>> That one looks broken.
>>
>> Well, it looks like it might "work", but do so by hiding the issue for
>> one case, while leaving it in the more general case.
>>
>> Why does it do that
>>
>>      up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>>      tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty);
>>      down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>>
>> only if TTY_OTHER_CLOSED is set? If flushing the ldisc can generate
>> more data, then we should do it *unconditionally* when we see that we
>> currently have no data to read.
>>
>> As it is, it looks like the patch fixes the TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case
>> ("read all pending data before returning -EIO"), but it leaves the
>> same broken case for the O_NONBLOCK case and for a hung up tty.
>>
>> The O_NONBLOCK case is presumably just a performance problem (the data
>> will come at _some_ point later), but it just looks bad in general.
>> And the tty_hung_up_p() looks actiely buggy, with the same bug as the
>> TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case that the patch tried to fix.
>>
>> Hmm? Am I missing something?

Apologies, I realized I didn't address the O_NONBLOCK case.

My reasoning for excluding O_NONBLOCK is that tty_flush_to_ldisc()
_waits_ for flush_to_ldisc() to complete. In the worst (admittedly
contrived) case, this could be unbounded running time: a sufficiently
fast source could keep flush_to_ldisc() running forever by writing
4K chars and then 4k backspaces, ad infinitum.


> When a slave pty is closed, it's not hung up specifically so the
> master pty can be read.
>
> The same is not true for a regular tty; when a regular tty is hung up,
> all the pending data is vaporized (ie., what the tty layer refers
> to as 'flushed'). So checking for more data when tty_hung_up_p() is
> true is pointless.
>
> The distinction is clearer when you consider that even after the slave
> pty is closed, the master pty can still be read() even if it wasn't
> waiting in n_tty_read() at the time; this is not true of a regular tty, which
> cannot be read() after a hangup [tty_hung_up_p() tests if the
> file_operations pointer is set to non-operational read/write/ioctl functions].
>
> The patch fixes a race condition which is peculiar to ptys only.
>
>> The code is a bit confusing in *other* ways too: if you look later, it
>> does this:
>>
>>      n_tty_set_room(tty);
>>
>> which is documented to have to happen inside the termios_rwsem.
>> HOWEVER, what does that do? It actually does an _asynchronous_
>> queue_work() of &tty->port->buf.work, in case there is now more room,
>> and the previous one was blocked. And guess what that workqueue is all
>> about? Right: it's flush_to_ldisc() - which is the work that
>> tty_flush_to_ldisc() is trying to flush. So we're actually basically
>> making sure we've flush the previous pending work.
>
> The flush_to_ldisc() worker no longer re-schedules itself.
>
> The flush_to_ldisc() worker is scheduled when one of two events
> happen; 1) the driver has just written received data to the tty
> buffers, or 2) space has just become available in the N_TTY line
> discipline's read buffer when it was previously full.
>
> The flush_to_ldisc() worker continues to run as long as space
> is available in the line discipline's read buffer or until the
> tty buffers are empty.
>
> Concurrently with the flush_to_ldisc() worker, a reader may have
> an empty read buffer; the flush_to_ldisc() worker may or may not
> generate more input to be read.
>
> Generally when a reader has an empty read buffer, it will sleep unless
> one of the other conditions is met (TTY_OTHER_CLOSED, tty_hung_up_p,
> non-blocking, etc).
>
> Before sleeping, the reader will (re-)schedule the flush_to_ldisc()
> worker in case it read some input on the previous loop iteration
> (thus creating space in the read buffer when there was none previously).
>
> (That doesn't preclude that flush_to_ldisc() may already be running
> but isn't processing as fast as the reader is reading.)
>
>
>> So even the tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty) that gets done in that patch is
>> not necessarily sufficient, because the work might not have been
>> scheduled because the flip buffer used to be full. Then flushing the
>> work won't do anything, even though there is actually more data. Now,
>> that is a very unlikely situation (I think it requires two concurrent
>> readers), but it looks like it might be real.
>
> I don't think this condition is possible for a single reader (because
> the read condition will be satisfied and the reader will return).
> Multiple concurrent readers are excluded by the atomic_read_lock mutex
> at the the top of n_tty_read().

However, the atomic_read_lock exclusion needs to cover the
unconditional n_tty_set_room() when leaving n_tty_read() and
it doesn't. Thus, the departing reader fails to ensure the subsequent
reader has a running flush_to_ldisc() worker.

Patch forthcoming.

>> So I suspect we should *unconditionally* do
>>
>>       n_tty_set_room(tty);
>>       up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>>       tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty);
>>       down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>>
>> if we don't have any pending input. And then test input_available_p()
>> again. And only if we don't have any input after that flushing do we
>> start doing the whole TTY_OTHER_CLOSED and tty_hung_up_p() tests.
>>
>> Hmm?
>
> flush_to_ldisc() should not be rescheduled via n_tty_set_room() after
> the tty has been hung up. This will trigger the diagnostic warning that
> was introduced back in 3.8 which proved that the line discipline
> was still running after the tty had been released.

Apologies again. This is not true for any existing reader.

Regards,
Peter Hurley

Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY/Serial fixes for 3.12-rc4

[Greg KH]

On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:11:25PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 10/05/2013 07:57 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >On 10/05/2013 02:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> >>On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 10:34 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>One fixes the reported regression in the n_tty code that a number of
> >>>people found recently
> >>
> >>That one looks broken.
> >>
> >>Well, it looks like it might "work", but do so by hiding the issue for
> >>one case, while leaving it in the more general case.
> >>
> >>Why does it do that
> >>
> >>     up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> >>     tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty);
> >>     down_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> >>
> >>only if TTY_OTHER_CLOSED is set? If flushing the ldisc can generate
> >>more data, then we should do it *unconditionally* when we see that we
> >>currently have no data to read.
> >>
> >>As it is, it looks like the patch fixes the TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case
> >>("read all pending data before returning -EIO"), but it leaves the
> >>same broken case for the O_NONBLOCK case and for a hung up tty.
> >>
> >>The O_NONBLOCK case is presumably just a performance problem (the data
> >>will come at _some_ point later), but it just looks bad in general.
> >>And the tty_hung_up_p() looks actiely buggy, with the same bug as the
> >>TTY_OTHER_CLOSED case that the patch tried to fix.
> >>
> >>Hmm? Am I missing something?
> 
> Apologies, I realized I didn't address the O_NONBLOCK case.
> 
> My reasoning for excluding O_NONBLOCK is that tty_flush_to_ldisc()
> _waits_ for flush_to_ldisc() to complete. In the worst (admittedly
> contrived) case, this could be unbounded running time: a sufficiently
> fast source could keep flush_to_ldisc() running forever by writing
> 4K chars and then 4k backspaces, ad infinitum.
> 
> 
> >When a slave pty is closed, it's not hung up specifically so the
> >master pty can be read.
> >
> >The same is not true for a regular tty; when a regular tty is hung up,
> >all the pending data is vaporized (ie., what the tty layer refers
> >to as 'flushed'). So checking for more data when tty_hung_up_p() is
> >true is pointless.
> >
> >The distinction is clearer when you consider that even after the slave
> >pty is closed, the master pty can still be read() even if it wasn't
> >waiting in n_tty_read() at the time; this is not true of a regular tty, which
> >cannot be read() after a hangup [tty_hung_up_p() tests if the
> >file_operations pointer is set to non-operational read/write/ioctl functions].
> >
> >The patch fixes a race condition which is peculiar to ptys only.
> >
> >>The code is a bit confusing in *other* ways too: if you look later, it
> >>does this:
> >>
> >>     n_tty_set_room(tty);
> >>
> >>which is documented to have to happen inside the termios_rwsem.
> >>HOWEVER, what does that do? It actually does an _asynchronous_
> >>queue_work() of &tty->port->buf.work, in case there is now more room,
> >>and the previous one was blocked. And guess what that workqueue is all
> >>about? Right: it's flush_to_ldisc() - which is the work that
> >>tty_flush_to_ldisc() is trying to flush. So we're actually basically
> >>making sure we've flush the previous pending work.
> >
> >The flush_to_ldisc() worker no longer re-schedules itself.
> >
> >The flush_to_ldisc() worker is scheduled when one of two events
> >happen; 1) the driver has just written received data to the tty
> >buffers, or 2) space has just become available in the N_TTY line
> >discipline's read buffer when it was previously full.
> >
> >The flush_to_ldisc() worker continues to run as long as space
> >is available in the line discipline's read buffer or until the
> >tty buffers are empty.
> >
> >Concurrently with the flush_to_ldisc() worker, a reader may have
> >an empty read buffer; the flush_to_ldisc() worker may or may not
> >generate more input to be read.
> >
> >Generally when a reader has an empty read buffer, it will sleep unless
> >one of the other conditions is met (TTY_OTHER_CLOSED, tty_hung_up_p,
> >non-blocking, etc).
> >
> >Before sleeping, the reader will (re-)schedule the flush_to_ldisc()
> >worker in case it read some input on the previous loop iteration
> >(thus creating space in the read buffer when there was none previously).
> >
> >(That doesn't preclude that flush_to_ldisc() may already be running
> >but isn't processing as fast as the reader is reading.)
> >
> >
> >>So even the tty_flush_to_ldisc(tty) that gets done in that patch is
> >>not necessarily sufficient, because the work might not have been
> >>scheduled because the flip buffer used to be full. Then flushing the
> >>work won't do anything, even though there is actually more data. Now,
> >>that is a very unlikely situation (I think it requires two concurrent
> >>readers), but it looks like it might be real.
> >
> >I don't think this condition is possible for a single reader (because
> >the read condition will be satisfied and the reader will return).
> >Multiple concurrent readers are excluded by the atomic_read_lock mutex
> >at the the top of n_tty_read().
> 
> However, the atomic_read_lock exclusion needs to cover the
> unconditional n_tty_set_room() when leaving n_tty_read() and
> it doesn't. Thus, the departing reader fails to ensure the subsequent
> reader has a running flush_to_ldisc() worker.
> 
> Patch forthcoming.

Did I miss this patch, or did it not come forth?

thanks,

greg k-h

Re: [GIT PATCH] TTY/Serial fixes for 3.12-rc4

[Peter Hurley]

On 10/17/2013 05:12 PM, Greg KH wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 05, 2013 at 10:11:25PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
>> On 10/05/2013 07:57 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
>>
>> However, the atomic_read_lock exclusion needs to cover the
>> unconditional n_tty_set_room() when leaving n_tty_read() and
>> it doesn't. Thus, the departing reader fails to ensure the subsequent
>> reader has a running flush_to_ldisc() worker.
>>
>> Patch forthcoming.
>
> Did I miss this patch, or did it not come forth?

Sorry to go off-grid like that;  interrupt(life) happened.

I'm testing that patch now.

Regards,
Peter Hurley

[PATCH] n_tty: Ensure reader restarts worker for next reader

[Peter Hurley]

A departing reader must restart a flush_to_ldisc() worker _before_
the next reader enters the read loop; this is to avoid the new reader
concluding no more i/o is available and prematurely exiting, when the
old reader simply hasn't re-started the worker yet.

Cc: stable@kernel.org # 3.12
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
---
 drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
index 7a744b6..ce11cd5 100644
--- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
+++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
@@ -2250,6 +2250,9 @@ static ssize_t n_tty_read(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file,
 		if (time)
 			timeout = time;
 	}
+	n_tty_set_room(tty);
+	up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
+
 	mutex_unlock(&ldata->atomic_read_lock);
 	remove_wait_queue(&tty->read_wait, &wait);
 
@@ -2260,8 +2263,6 @@ static ssize_t n_tty_read(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file,
 	if (b - buf)
 		retval = b - buf;
 
-	n_tty_set_room(tty);
-	up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
 	return retval;
 }
 
-- 
1.8.1.2

Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Ensure reader restarts worker for next reader

[Peter Hurley]

On 11/07/2013 01:59 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> A departing reader must restart a flush_to_ldisc() worker _before_
> the next reader enters the read loop; this is to avoid the new reader
> concluding no more i/o is available and prematurely exiting, when the
> old reader simply hasn't re-started the worker yet.
>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org # 3.12
> Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>

Greg,

I fluffed the stable cc:  Please pick this up for 3.12.1.

Regards,
Peter Hurley

Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Ensure reader restarts worker for next reader

[Linus Torvalds]

Greg,
 what happened to this patch? Is it still waiting in some random tree
of yours, or did it get lost?

                    Linus

On Thu, Nov 7, 2013 at 10:59 AM, Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com> wrote:
> A departing reader must restart a flush_to_ldisc() worker _before_
> the next reader enters the read loop; this is to avoid the new reader
> concluding no more i/o is available and prematurely exiting, when the
> old reader simply hasn't re-started the worker yet.
>
> Cc: stable@kernel.org # 3.12
> Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
> ---
>  drivers/tty/n_tty.c | 5 +++--
>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> index 7a744b6..ce11cd5 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/n_tty.c
> @@ -2250,6 +2250,9 @@ static ssize_t n_tty_read(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file,
>                 if (time)
>                         timeout = time;
>         }
> +       n_tty_set_room(tty);
> +       up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
> +
>         mutex_unlock(&ldata->atomic_read_lock);
>         remove_wait_queue(&tty->read_wait, &wait);
>
> @@ -2260,8 +2263,6 @@ static ssize_t n_tty_read(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *file,
>         if (b - buf)
>                 retval = b - buf;
>
> -       n_tty_set_room(tty);
> -       up_read(&tty->termios_rwsem);
>         return retval;
>  }
>
> --
> 1.8.1.2
>

Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Ensure reader restarts worker for next reader

[Greg Kroah-Hartman]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 04:21:54PM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> Greg,
>  what happened to this patch? Is it still waiting in some random tree
> of yours, or did it get lost?

I was waiting for 3.13-rc1 to be out to populate my trees and then send
it on to you.

But if you want to take it now, great, I have no objection, otherwise I
was going to wait till next week.

greg k-h

Re: [PATCH] n_tty: Ensure reader restarts worker for next reader

[Linus Torvalds]

On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:30 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
<gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> I was waiting for 3.13-rc1 to be out to populate my trees and then send
> it on to you.
>
> But if you want to take it now, great, I have no objection, otherwise I
> was going to wait till next week.

I don't care deeply - it's marled for stable, but the race it fixes is
so unlikely as to be almost irrelevant, so it's not like I need it
now.

I was just going through emails that came in during travel, and making
sure it's not lost.

So I'll happily forget about it, knowing that it is in your queue.

                 Linus