lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Nov]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCHv4 05/17] pps: access pps device by direct pointer
В Sun, 21 Nov 2010 09:26:58 +0100
Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@enneenne.com> пишет:

> On Sun, Nov 21, 2010 at 01:33:27AM +0300, Alexander Gordeev wrote:
> > > > - if (ret < 0) {
> > > > + if (pps == NULL) {
> > > > pr_err("cannot register PPS source \"%s\"\n", info.path);
> > > > - return ret;
> > > > + return -ENOMEM;
> > > > }
> > > > - tty->disc_data = (void *)(long)ret;
> > > > +
> > > > + spin_lock_irq(&pps_ldisc_lock);
> > > > + tty->disc_data = pps;
> > > > + spin_unlock_irq(&pps_ldisc_lock);
> > >
> > > Maybe this lock is useless... however, are we sure that before setting
> > > tty->disc_data to pps its value is null? Otherwise the dcd_change may
> > > be called with an oops! We cannot control serial port IRQ
> > > generation... :-/
> >
> > No, locking here is necessary.
> > There is only one problem this spinlock protects us from: current tty
> > code neither disables interrupts nor doesn't ensure there are no
> > references to PPS ldisc from uart_handle_dcd_change() before closing it
> > (and removing PPS source). It relies on flushing workqueue and disabling
> > input. It worked good this way until dcd_change() was added which
> > doesn't use workqueues and is called in atomic context so can't lock
> > on mutex.
> >
> > Imagine that (on SMP system) uart_handle_dcd_change() could obtain a
> > reference to ldisc and call dcd_change() until actually calling
> > pps_event(); then on another processor all the path from
> > tty_ldisc_halt() until tty_ldisc_stop() is executed. And then
> > pps_event() is called with illegal pps pointer.
> >
> > I just thought you are right that disc_data can be set not NULL by
> > another ldisc and it's a problem. But actually I just realised how to
> > fix it completely. :)
> >
> > I just have to add a spinlock to tty_struct, lock all the
> > uart_handle_dcd_change() with it and add a "barrier" between
> > tty_ldisc_halt() and tty_ldisc_close() i.e. just that:
> >
> > ...
> > spin_lock_irq();
> > spin_unlock_irq();
> > ...
> >
> > This "barrier" will ensure that there is no references to ldisc from
> > uart_handle_dcd_change(). It won't be able to obtain a new reference
> > after tty_ldisc_halt() so will become completely sane. Not disabling
> > interrupts won't be a problem because it won't be able to obtain an
> > ldisc reference until tty_ldisc_enable() which is called only after the
> > new ldisc is fully functional. If it's our ldisc than it will have both
> > dcd_change defined and a valid pps pointer. If it's not our ldisc it
> > won't have both so uart_handle_dcd_change() won't call dcd_change() at
> > all.
> >
> > I think I'll do that as a separate patch.
>
> Excuse me but IMHO you should solve all your problems if you do the lock into
> pps_tty_init/cleanup instead of into pps_tty_open/close.
>
> spin_lock_irq();
> err = tty_register_ldisc(N_PPS, &pps_ldisc_ops);
> if (err)
> pr_err("can't register PPS line discipline\n");
> else
> pr_info("PPS line discipline registered\n");
> spin_unlock_irq();
>
> And the same into cleanup.

Sorry, I don't understand how this is supposed to help. Anyway, a new
patch is underway.

--
Alexander
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-11-22 16:03    [W:0.062 / U:7.792 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site