lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Oct]   [13]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Bug #14388] keyboard under X with 2.6.31
Frédéric L. W. Meunier wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Justin P. Mattock wrote:
>
>> Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>> [ Alan, Paulkf - the tty buffering and locking is originally your code,
>>> although from about three years ago, when it used to be in tty_io.c..
>>> Any comment? ]
>>>
>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, Linus Torvalds wrote:
>>>
>>>> Alan, Ogawa-san, do either of you see some problem in tty_buffer.c,
>>>> perhaps?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm. I see one, at least.
>>>
>>> The "tty_insert_flip_string()" locking seems totally bogus.
>>>
>>> It does that "tty_buffer_request_room()" call and subsequent copying
>>> with
>>> no locking at all - sure, the tty_buffer_request_room() function itself
>>> locks the buffers, but then unlocks it when returning, so when we
>>> actually
>>> do the memcpy() etc, we can race with anybody.
>>>
>>> I don't really see who would care, but it does look totally broken.
>>>
>>> I dunno, this patch seems to make sense to me. Am I missing something?
>>>
>>> [ NOTE! The patch is totally untested. It compiled for me on x86-64, and
>>> apart from that I'm just going to say that it looks obvious, and
>>> the old
>>> code looks obviously buggy. Also, any remaining users of
>>>
>>> tty_prepare_flip_string
>>> tty_prepare_flip_string_flags
>>>
>>> are still fundamentally broken and buggy, while users of
>>>
>>> tty_buffer_request_room
>>>
>>> are pretty damn odd and suspect (but a lot of them seem to be just
>>> pointless: they then call tty_insert_flip_string(), which means
>>> that the
>>> tty_buffer_request_room() call was totally redundant ]
>>>
>>> Comments? Does this work? Does it make any difference? It seems fairly
>>> unlikely, but it's the only obvious problem I've seen in the tty
>>> buffering
>>> code so far.
>>>
>>> And that code is literally 3 years old, and it seems unlikely that a
>>> regular _keyboard_ buffer would be able to hit the (rather small) race
>>> condition. But other serialization may have hidden it, and timing
>>> differences could certainly have caused it to trigger much more easily.
>>>
>>> Linus
>>>
>>> ---
>>> drivers/char/tty_buffer.c | 33 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------
>>> 1 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c b/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
>>> index 3108991..25ab538 100644
>>> --- a/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
>>> +++ b/drivers/char/tty_buffer.c
>>> @@ -196,13 +196,10 @@ static struct tty_buffer
>>> *tty_buffer_find(struct tty_struct *tty, size_t size)
>>> *
>>> * Locking: Takes tty->buf.lock
>>> */
>>> -int tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct *tty, size_t size)
>>> +static int locked_tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct *tty,
>>> size_t size)
>>> {
>>> struct tty_buffer *b, *n;
>>> int left;
>>> - unsigned long flags;
>>> -
>>> - spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>>
>>> /* OPTIMISATION: We could keep a per tty "zero" sized buffer to
>>> remove this conditional if its worth it. This would be
>>> invisible
>>> @@ -225,9 +222,20 @@ int tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct
>>> *tty, size_t size)
>>> size = left;
>>> }
>>>
>>> - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>> return size;
>>> }
>>> +
>>> +int tty_buffer_request_room(struct tty_struct *tty, size_t size)
>>> +{
>>> + int retval;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>> + retval = locked_tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size);
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>> + return retval;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tty_buffer_request_room);
>>>
>>> /**
>>> @@ -239,16 +247,20 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(tty_buffer_request_room);
>>> * Queue a series of bytes to the tty buffering. All the characters
>>> * passed are marked as without error. Returns the number added.
>>> *
>>> - * Locking: Called functions may take tty->buf.lock
>>> + * Locking: We take tty->buf.lock
>>> */
>>>
>>> int tty_insert_flip_string(struct tty_struct *tty, const unsigned
>>> char *chars,
>>> size_t size)
>>> {
>>> int copied = 0;
>>> + unsigned long flags;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>> do {
>>> - int space = tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>> + int space = locked_tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>> struct tty_buffer *tb = tty->buf.tail;
>>> +
>>> /* If there is no space then tb may be NULL */
>>> if (unlikely(space == 0))
>>> break;
>>> @@ -260,6 +272,7 @@ int tty_insert_flip_string(struct tty_struct
>>> *tty, const unsigned char *chars,
>>> /* There is a small chance that we need to split the data over
>>> several buffers. If this is the case we must loop */
>>> } while (unlikely(size> copied));
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, flags);
>>> return copied;
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_insert_flip_string);
>>> @@ -282,8 +295,11 @@ int tty_insert_flip_string_flags(struct
>>> tty_struct *tty,
>>> const unsigned char *chars, const char *flags, size_t size)
>>> {
>>> int copied = 0;
>>> + unsigned long irqflags;
>>> +
>>> + spin_lock_irqsave(&tty->buf.lock, irqflags);
>>> do {
>>> - int space = tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>> + int space = locked_tty_buffer_request_room(tty, size - copied);
>>> struct tty_buffer *tb = tty->buf.tail;
>>> /* If there is no space then tb may be NULL */
>>> if (unlikely(space == 0))
>>> @@ -297,6 +313,7 @@ int tty_insert_flip_string_flags(struct
>>> tty_struct *tty,
>>> /* There is a small chance that we need to split the data over
>>> several buffers. If this is the case we must loop */
>>> } while (unlikely(size> copied));
>>> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&tty->buf.lock, irqflags);
>>> return copied;
>>> }
>>> EXPORT_SYMBOL(tty_insert_flip_string_flags);
>>>
>>>
>> I can throw your patch in over here for the heck of it.
>> If there's somebody who's really hitting this bug
>> then the results would be better if this is the area that causing
>> this bug.(from here the only issue I'm seeing is spinning
>> history commands in the terminal from time to time,
>> nothing of any unusable keys like others are reporting).
>
> I tested it on top of 2.6.31.4 (after putting back
> e043e42bdb66885b3ac10d27a01ccb9972e2b0a3), and the keyboard is fine
> after almost 3h. Before that, the problems would appear in less than 1h.
> Maybe I spoke too soon, but...
>
> Boyan, does it work for you ?
>

I've just tested it on top of 2.6.31.3 and it doesn't work. As I've
mentioned in previous email - I usually trigger the problem easily
watching pictures with gthumb - this is combination of cpu intensive
operations and keyboard usage and if it doesn't work it takes me no more
than a minute to trigger the problem.

I thought the problem may be more easily triggered because of the newer
(1.6.4 RC) in fedora which is slower for my ati radeon cards, but now
I'm with older version 1.6.1.901 which is fine in speed - so it doesn't
matter what is the version of X.
--
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-10-13 10:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans