From: John Ogness <john.ogness@linutronix.de>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>
Cc: Andreas Schwab <schwab@linux-m68k.org>,
linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org,
"open list:SERIAL DRIVERS" <linux-serial@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2026 15:44:34 +0206 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874igoap45.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <aob5oO_7qxII_qTB@pathway.suse.cz>
On 2026-08-20, Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com> wrote:
>> > --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
>> > +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
>> > @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
>> > static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
>> > {
>> > *index = 0;
>> > - return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
>>
>> Interestingly, that call to console_is_registered() was added in
>> commit de61a1a3a0830710 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"),
>> i.e. in the same series that added the extra locking...
>
> Sigh, we clearly did not check the callers of this function properly
> at that time :/
>
>> > + return nfcon_tty_driver;
>
> Honestly, I do not feel comfortable with removing the check
> completely.
>
> The commit de61a1a3a083071 ("tty: nfcon: use console_is_registered()"
> used console_is_registered() instead of (con->flags & CON_ENABLED).
> And CON_ENABLED is historically cleared when the console is suspended,
> see console_suspend().
Since the NatFeat console driver never implemented suspend/resume
callbacks, I assume it was intended to identify if the console was
registered.
> Is is OK to return a valid struct tty_driver for a non-registered
> or suspended console for all con->device() callers?
>
> I have found only 4 callers:
>
> $> git grep "\->device("
> drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c: if (cons->device && cons->device(cons, &idx) == p &&
> drivers/tty/tty_io.c: struct tty_driver *drv = cs[i]->device(cs[i], &index);
> fs/proc/consoles.c: driver = con->device(con, &index);
> kernel/printk/printk.c: driver = c->device(c, index);
>
> These are:
>
> + configure_kgdboc() in drivers/tty/serial/kgdboc.c
> + show_cons_active() in drivers/tty/tty_io.c
> + show_console_dev() in fs/proc/consoles.c
> + console_device() in kernel/printk/printk.c
>
> , where
>
> + configure_kgdboc() is used during the system initialization
> when the console should not be suspended
>
> + show_cons_active() and show_console_dev() are questionable.
> Maybe, we should not advertise the device to the userspace
> when it is suspended.
>
> + console_device() is used in tty_kopen() -> tty_lookup_driver().
> Also here we likely should not allow to open a suspended device.
All of these callbacks are done when the console is guaranteed to be
registered (or not yet fully unregistered).
> Let's take a step back:
>
> We should define the locking context for con->device() callback.
> It seems that it is called under console_lock() and
> console_srcu_read_lock() in:
>
> + configure_kgdboc()
> + console_device()
>
> and under console_list_lock() and console_lock() in
>
> + show_console_dev()
> + show_cons_active()
>
> I would put aside the console_lock(). We are trying to obsolete it.
> So it is down to
>
> console_srcu_read_lock() vs console_list_lock()
>
> Both of them look reasonable. So, I think about adding a variant
> of console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked() which would work
> with both locking. Something like:
>
> diff --git a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> index d41260672e24..d211b6c4da26 100644
> --- a/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> +++ b/arch/m68k/emu/nfcon.c
> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void nfcon_write(struct console *con, const char *str,
> static struct tty_driver *nfcon_device(struct console *con, int *index)
> {
> *index = 0;
> - return console_is_registered(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
> + return console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(con) ? nfcon_tty_driver : NULL;
> }
>
> static struct console nf_console = {
> diff --git a/include/linux/console.h b/include/linux/console.h
> index d624200cfc17..b90527db4eca 100644
> --- a/include/linux/console.h
> +++ b/include/linux/console.h
> @@ -311,7 +311,7 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
> * @name: The name of the console driver
> * @write: Legacy write callback to output messages (Optional)
> * @read: Read callback for console input (Optional)
> - * @device: The underlying TTY device driver (Optional)
> + * @device: The underlying TTY device driver (Optional) [1]
> * @unblank: Callback to unblank the console (Optional)
> * @setup: Callback for initializing the console (Optional)
> * @exit: Callback for teardown of the console (Optional)
> @@ -334,6 +334,9 @@ struct nbcon_write_context {
> * @kthread: Printer kthread for this console
> * @rcuwait: RCU-safe wait object for @kthread waking
> * @irq_work: Defer @kthread waking to IRQ work context
> + *
> + * [1] The @device callback must be called under either console_list_lock()
> + * or console_srcu_read_lock().
> */
> struct console {
> char name[16];
> @@ -473,8 +476,13 @@ struct console {
> };
>
> #ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> +extern bool console_list_lock_is_held(void);
> extern void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void);
> #else
> +static inline bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
> +{
> + return 1;
> +}
> static inline void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
> {
> }
> @@ -555,6 +563,16 @@ static inline bool console_is_registered_locked(const struct console *con)
> return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
> }
>
> +/*
> + * Variant of console_is_registered() when either the console_srcu_read_lock
> + * or console_list_lock is held.
> +*/
> +static inline bool console_is_registered_srcu_read_locked(const struct console *con)
> +{
> + lockdep_assert(console_srcu_read_lock_is_held() || console_list_lock_is_held());
> + return !hlist_unhashed(&con->node);
> +}
> +
> /*
> * console_is_registered - Check if the console is registered
> * @con: struct console pointer of console to check
> diff --git a/kernel/printk/printk.c b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> index 2fe9a963c823..9b632b91f096 100644
> --- a/kernel/printk/printk.c
> +++ b/kernel/printk/printk.c
> @@ -109,6 +109,12 @@ static struct lockdep_map console_lock_dep_map = {
> .name = "console_lock"
> };
>
> +bool console_list_lock_is_held(void)
> +{
> + return lockdep_is_held(&console_mutex);
> +}
> +EXPORT_SYMBOL(console_list_lock_is_held);
> +
> void lockdep_assert_console_list_lock_held(void)
> {
> lockdep_assert_held(&console_mutex);
>
>
> Alternative solution would be to require the srcu locking.
> IMHO, it should be perfectly fine to use the srcu_read_lock in
> both show_console_dev() and show_cons_active().
>
> What do you think, please?
> John?
I do not think any of that is necessary. I think it is enough to allow
the ->device() callback to assume it is registered. I see no reason why
the _callback_ should ever need to take the console_list_lock or the
console_srcu_read_lock.
John
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-08-20 13:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <87ecfzsv6h.fsf@igel.home>
2026-08-17 9:26 ` [PATCH] m68k: nfcon: don't call console_is_registered in nfcon_device Geert Uytterhoeven
2026-08-20 10:16 ` John Ogness
2026-08-20 12:57 ` Petr Mladek
2026-08-20 13:38 ` John Ogness [this message]
2026-08-20 15:57 ` Petr Mladek
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=874igoap45.fsf@jogness.linutronix.de \
--to=john.ogness@linutronix.de \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-serial@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pmladek@suse.com \
--cc=schwab@linux-m68k.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