From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@microgate.com>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Greg KH <greg@kroah.com>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] n_hdlc fix read and write locking
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:05:02 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101025130502.77685ac1.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1288030959.19909.28.camel@x2.microgate.com>
On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:22:39 -0500
Paul Fulghum <paulkf@microgate.com> wrote:
> Fix locking in read and write code of n_hdlc line discipline.
Missing a couple of cc's here...
> 2.6.36 replaced lock_kernel() with tty_lock().
> The tty mutex is not dropped automatically when the thread
> sleeps like the BKL. This results in a blocked read or write holding
> the tty mutex and stalling operations by other devices that use
> the tty mutex.
>
> A review of n_hdlc read and write code shows:
> 1. neither BKL or tty mutex are required for correct operation
> 2. read can block while read data is available if data is posted
> between availability check and call to interruptible_sleep_on()
> 3. write does not set process state to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
> on each pass through the processing loop which can cause
> unneeded scheduling of the thread
>
> The unnecessary tty mutex references have been removed.
>
> Read changed to use same code as n_tty read
> for completing reads and blocking.
>
> Write corrected to set process state to
> TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE on each pass through processing loop.
>
And a signed-off-by:, please.
> --- a/drivers/char/n_hdlc.c 2010-10-22 14:22:22.000000000 -0500
> +++ b/drivers/char/n_hdlc.c 2010-10-25 12:36:12.000000000 -0500
> @@ -581,8 +581,9 @@ static ssize_t n_hdlc_tty_read(struct tt
> __u8 __user *buf, size_t nr)
> {
> struct n_hdlc *n_hdlc = tty2n_hdlc(tty);
> - int ret;
> + int ret = 0;
> struct n_hdlc_buf *rbuf;
> + DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
>
> if (debuglevel >= DEBUG_LEVEL_INFO)
> printk("%s(%d)n_hdlc_tty_read() called\n",__FILE__,__LINE__);
> @@ -598,57 +599,55 @@ static ssize_t n_hdlc_tty_read(struct tt
> return -EFAULT;
> }
>
> - tty_lock();
> + add_wait_queue(&tty->read_wait, &wait);
>
> for (;;) {
> if (test_bit(TTY_OTHER_CLOSED, &tty->flags)) {
> - tty_unlock();
> - return -EIO;
> + ret = -EIO;
> + break;
> }
> + if (tty_hung_up_p(file))
> + break;
>
> - n_hdlc = tty2n_hdlc (tty);
> - if (!n_hdlc || n_hdlc->magic != HDLC_MAGIC ||
> - tty != n_hdlc->tty) {
> - tty_unlock();
> - return 0;
> - }
> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> rbuf = n_hdlc_buf_get(&n_hdlc->rx_buf_list);
> - if (rbuf)
> + if (rbuf) {
> + if (rbuf->count > nr) {
> + /* too large for caller's buffer */
> + ret = -EOVERFLOW;
> + } else {
> + if (copy_to_user(buf, rbuf->buf, rbuf->count))
It's not a bug afaict, but beware that a copy_to_user() will
unconditionally flip this task back into TASK_RUNNING state if it takes
a pagefault. This means that the below schedule() will fall straight
through. It looks like the code will handle this correctly? If so,
it's just a little suboptimal.
> + ret = -EFAULT;
> + else
> + ret = rbuf->count;
> + }
> +
> + if (n_hdlc->rx_free_buf_list.count >
> + DEFAULT_RX_BUF_COUNT)
> + kfree(rbuf);
> + else
> + n_hdlc_buf_put(&n_hdlc->rx_free_buf_list, rbuf);
> break;
> + }
>
> /* no data */
> if (file->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) {
> - tty_unlock();
> - return -EAGAIN;
> + ret = -EAGAIN;
> + break;
> }
> -
> - interruptible_sleep_on (&tty->read_wait);
> +
> + schedule();
> +
> if (signal_pending(current)) {
> - tty_unlock();
> - return -EINTR;
> + ret = -EINTR;
> + break;
> }
> }
> -
> - if (rbuf->count > nr)
> - /* frame too large for caller's buffer (discard frame) */
> - ret = -EOVERFLOW;
> - else {
> - /* Copy the data to the caller's buffer */
> - if (copy_to_user(buf, rbuf->buf, rbuf->count))
> - ret = -EFAULT;
> - else
> - ret = rbuf->count;
> - }
> -
> - /* return HDLC buffer to free list unless the free list */
> - /* count has exceeded the default value, in which case the */
> - /* buffer is freed back to the OS to conserve memory */
> - if (n_hdlc->rx_free_buf_list.count > DEFAULT_RX_BUF_COUNT)
> - kfree(rbuf);
> - else
> - n_hdlc_buf_put(&n_hdlc->rx_free_buf_list,rbuf);
> - tty_unlock();
> +
> + remove_wait_queue(&tty->read_wait, &wait);
> + set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
We normally use __set_current_state() here - it saves a few cycles.
> return ret;
>
> } /* end of n_hdlc_tty_read() */
>
> ...
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-25 20:05 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-10-25 18:22 [PATCH] n_hdlc fix read and write locking Paul Fulghum
2010-10-25 20:05 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2010-10-25 20:29 ` Paul Fulghum
2010-10-25 21:19 ` Paul Fulghum
2010-10-25 20:31 ` Arnd Bergmann
2010-10-25 23:18 ` Paul Fulghum
2010-10-26 10:40 ` Arnd Bergmann
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=20101025130502.77685ac1.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=arnd@arndb.de \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=paulkf@microgate.com \
/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