Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 10 Jan 2012 01:20:46 -0800 | From | Dmitry Torokhov <> | Subject | Re: Incorrect uses of get_driver()/put_driver() |
| |
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 10:05:41AM +0100, Martin Schwidefsky wrote: > On Mon, 9 Jan 2012 12:35:09 -0500 (EST) > Alan Stern <stern@rowland.harvard.edu> wrote: > > > drivers/s390/cio/device.c:1681: drv = get_driver(&cdrv->driver); > > drivers/s390/cio/device.c:1687: put_driver(drv); > > > > Martin, these calls seem to be useless. The calls in ccwgroup.c are > > definitely useless; there's no reason to take a reference to a driver > > while it's being unregistered, since it can't go away until the > > unregistration is finished. > > The get_driver/put_driver in ccwgroup.c are obviously useless, the caller > passed ccwgroup_driver_unregister a ccwgroup_driver reference. > I am not so sure about the code in device.c. get_ccwdev_by_busid() gets > used e.g. by vmur like this:
It does not matter how it is being used. Either get_ccwdev_by_busid() gets a valid driver structure or you already lost. You can not say that get_driver() protects anything, since if there is a chance driver can disappear it can disappear before we get to executing get_driver() code.
So while you might want to audit callers get/put_driver inside of get_ccwdev_by_busid() is utterly useless.
Thanks.
-- Dmitry
| |