From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stanislav Kozina Subject: Re: Patch for panic in n_tty_read() Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:58:52 +0200 Message-ID: <501676FC.6020103@redhat.com> References: <4FE886C6.7090606@redhat.com> <20120626152159.2a34dcaf@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <50094C8E.5010308@redhat.com> <20120720161123.58fc9703@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> <501283FC.8070409@redhat.com> <20120727135044.356823f4@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:15824 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752456Ab2G3L7D (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Jul 2012 07:59:03 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20120727135044.356823f4@pyramind.ukuu.org.uk> Sender: linux-serial-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-serial@vger.kernel.org To: Alan Cox Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman , linux-serial@vger.kernel.org Alan, I am very sorry, but I don't see it. We didn't held the lock while calling tty_audit_push() before, and we don't hold it after the patch neither. So what's the locking scheme change here? Is there some binding between n_tty_read() and tty_audit_push() I just don't see? Thank you, -Stanislav > Looks good to me. However it changes the locking rules on > tty_audit_push() so please check the audit folks are ok with it. I don't > think that causes any problems. > > Alan