Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:13:35 -0700 | From | Chris Wright <> | Subject | Re: [RFC] PCI device list locking |
| |
* Greg KH (greg@kroah.com) wrote: > > Comments? Places I missed protecting?
Is it safe to ignore pcibios_init? This happens after smp_init, but are could there be multiple events (that would effect pcibios_sort)?
> --- a/drivers/pci/proc.c Tue Jun 17 12:47:27 2003 > +++ b/drivers/pci/proc.c Tue Jun 17 12:47:27 2003 > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@ > #include <linux/proc_fs.h> > #include <linux/seq_file.h> > #include <linux/smp_lock.h> > +#include "pci.h" > > #include <asm/uaccess.h> > #include <asm/byteorder.h> > @@ -311,20 +312,32 @@ > struct list_head *p = &pci_devices; > loff_t n = *pos; > > - /* XXX: surely we need some locking for traversing the list? */ > + spin_lock(&pci_bus_lock);
should you just grab this lock here (pci_seq_start), and release in pci_seq_stop, holding for duration of ->seq_start() ->seq_next() ->seq_stop(). IOW, what happens when you grab list element in ->seq_start(), it's removed from list, you reference a bogus ->next pointer in ->seq_next()?
thanks, -chris -- Linux Security Modules http://lsm.immunix.org http://lsm.bkbits.net - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |