Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 3 May 2005 17:50:23 -0700 | | From | Andrew Morton <> | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] tty races |
| |
Jason Baron <jbaron@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't see anywhere which takes lock_kernel() on the tty_open() path. > > > > fs/char_dev.c:chrdev_open(): > > if (filp->f_op->open) { > lock_kernel(); > ret = filp->f_op->open(inode,filp); > unlock_kernel(); > } >
hm, we're still doing that.
> > > > We want to move away from lock_kernel()-based locking. > > > > I completely agree, but unfortunately lock_kernel() is currently used > extensively throughout the tty layer.
Well no - it's being migrated over to use tty_sem. We shouldn't start heading in the reverse direction. Plus your patch reverts part of http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/diffs/drivers/char/tty_io.c@1.156?nav=index.html|src/|src/drivers|src/drivers/char|hist/drivers/char/tty_io.c in ways which might be unsafe. > lock_kernel() is used extensively throughout the tty layer. We can > re-write the locking for the layer, but I'd like to see this bug fix in > 2.6.12, if that isn't done in time.
Sorry, but AFAICT all you have done is to advocate for the existing patch without having attempted to fix this problem with tty_sem. Please try to come up with a tty_sem-based fix. - 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/
|  |