[lkml]   [2014]   [May]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] w1: do not unlock unheld list_mutex in __w1_remove_master_device()
On 01.05.2014 07:48, David Fries wrote:
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 12:37:58AM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
>> w1_process_callbacks() expects to be called with dev->list_mutex held,
>> but it is the fact only in w1_process(). __w1_remove_master_device()
>> calls w1_process_callbacks() after it releases list_mutex.
>> The patch fixes __w1_remove_master_device() to acquire list_mutex
>> for w1_process_callbacks(). It is implemented by moving
>> w1_process_callbacks() functionality to __w1_process_callbacks()
>> and adding a wrapper with the old name.
> Good catch. I guess as it was in the shutdown path it failed the
> unlock silently.
> I would prefer a different fix. If w1_process_callbacks was more of a
> public facing API called from multiple locations where the caller
> doesn't have access to the locks, something like this would probably
> be the way to go. This is called from two areas of the code, and not
> likely to be called from any new areas in the future.
> Adding a documentation comment is good. I would be tempted in
> __w1_remove_master_device to move the dev->list_mutex down after the
> while loop, but I can't be sure that whatever has a refcnt wouldn't
> need list_mutex. The last w1_process_callbacks after the while loop
> shouldn't be needed I wouldn't think, I was just being defensive.
I do not understand all the details, but I am not sure.
refcnt can became 0, but that does not mean all callbacks have been
processed because they can be added before refcnt decrement but after
previous w1_process_callbacks invocation.
> By
> the time it completes the while loop the reference count is 0 so there
> shouldn't be anything left for it to process and if there is, it's a
> race condition and game over anyway. So just sandwich
> w1_process_callbacks with the lock/unlock in
> __w1_remove_master_device please.

Another suspicious question for me is how safe is it to call

>> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (
> Was this found with code inspection or hardware testing with lock
> debugging enabled?
It was found by static verification tools developed within Linux Driver
Verification project.

Best regards,

 \ /
  Last update: 2014-05-07 00:21    [W:0.095 / U:26.500 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site