From: Tomi Valkeinen <tomi.valkeinen@ti.com>
To: John Tapsell <johnflux@gmail.com>
Cc: Jean-Christophe Plagniol-Villard <plagnioj@jcrosoft.com>,
Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>,
Dave Airlie <airlied@redhat.com>, <linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fbcon: fix deadlock in fbcon_generic_blank()
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2013 10:15:48 +0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <524530A4.9060300@ti.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHQ6N+q13YeM60S_QfRF8Bh+Vc_7yHhCMSABQ=GOtOe5V0EXow@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1097 bytes --]
Hi,
On 18/09/13 01:29, John Tapsell wrote:
> Do not lock fb_info when calling sending the FB_EVENT_CONBLANK
> event.
>
> In fbmem.c, the semantics are that we acquire the lock_fb_info first,
> and then console_lock. However when fbcon.c fbcon_generic_blank() is
> called, the console lock could already be held. Locking fb_info can
> thus cause a deadlock.
So has this happened for you? Or is it just theoretical?
> fbmem.c sends the FB_EVENT_BLANK without locking lock_fb_info first, so
> this change introduces similar behaviour.
I don't think this is true. FB_EVENT_BLANK is sent in fb_blank(). That
one is called when FBIOBLANK ioctl is called, and it does lock_fb_info().
I'm not familiar with the console code, but removing a lock makes me
feel rather uneasy... But looking at the code, I can also see that
console_lock could already be held, so something here definitely looks
broken.
The only place using FB_EVENT_CONBLANK seems to be backlight, and if I'm
not mistaken, it has its own lock, and doesn't depend on the fb_info
being locked.
Tomi
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]
prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-09-27 7:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-09-17 22:29 [PATCH] fbcon: fix deadlock in fbcon_generic_blank() John Tapsell
2013-09-27 7:15 ` Tomi Valkeinen [this message]
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=524530A4.9060300@ti.com \
--to=tomi.valkeinen@ti.com \
--cc=airlied@redhat.com \
--cc=johnflux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-fbdev@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peter@hurleysoftware.com \
--cc=plagnioj@jcrosoft.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