From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To: Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com>
Cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@suse.cz>,
Frank Munzert <frankm@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
mingo@elte.hu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: BUG: lock held when returning to user space
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 18:39:06 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1205429946.8514.255.camel@twins> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1205423029.10894.75.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 08:43 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 22:40 +0100, Jiri Kosina wrote:
>
> > No, as it is a real bug if you use mutexes in this way. What happens if
> > process that has called open() on your device (and has not closed it yet)
> > calls fork()?
> > Another breakage scenario -- what if the filedescriptor is sent through
> > unix socket to another process? etc.
>
> There's a number of places where a semaphore is used across system
> calls.
>
> for instance the usb skeleton,
> drivers/usb/usb-skeleton.c
>
> Several of the watchdog drivers,
> drivers/watchdog/s3c2410_wdt.c
>
> These need to be removed, but the usage is clearly not compatible with
> the mutex API ..
>
> If you convert them to atomic counts then you loose the sleeping aspect
> of the semaphore, which you'd have to add back somehow.
>
> The only API that seems straight forward is using complete's .. Then you
> get an atomic count and all the sleeping function calls you might want..
> (include/linux/completion.h) The problem with complete's is that you
> can't start them out at "1" or "completed" unless you actually run
> complete() once during initialization (that's kind of ugly) ..
A simple waitqueue would work.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-03-13 17:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 18+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-03-12 15:45 BUG: lock held when returning to user space Frank Munzert
2008-03-12 16:29 ` Vegard Nossum
2008-03-12 21:40 ` Jiri Kosina
2008-03-13 15:43 ` Daniel Walker
2008-03-13 17:39 ` Peter Zijlstra [this message]
2008-03-13 17:56 ` Daniel Walker
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2008-03-13 16:49 J.C. Pizarro
2007-10-27 14:19 Gabriel C
2007-10-27 15:12 ` Jiri Kosina
2007-10-27 15:28 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-27 15:46 ` Andrew Morton
2007-10-28 11:12 ` Jiri Kosina
2007-10-29 12:20 ` Alessandro Zummo
2007-10-27 16:35 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-10-27 22:47 ` Jiri Kosina
2007-10-27 15:47 ` Arjan van de Ven
2007-10-27 16:09 ` Peter Zijlstra
2007-10-27 17:05 ` Arjan van de Ven
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=1205429946.8514.255.camel@twins \
--to=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=dwalker@mvista.com \
--cc=frankm@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=jkosina@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
/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