Re: Locking question for DRM

[Dave Airlie]

On Fri, Apr 23, 2010 at 8:22 PM, Alan Cox <alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Various bits of the DRM deal with minor->master:
>
> In the case of the open helper its protected by the struct mutex.
>
> In the release path it's protected on some paths, but not this one ...
>
>     /* if the master has gone away we can't do anything with the lock */
>        if (file_priv->minor->master)
>                drm_master_release(dev, filp);
>
> and I can't see what makes this safe if the drm_release for the master
> and a client occur at the same time ?

lock_kernel in drm_release. We probably need to clean that up.

>
> The setmaster/dropmaster ioctl seems similar - the various conditional
> checks are not protected from parallel changes occuring during their
> execution.
>
> Is this a bug or is something clever afoot ?

These ioctls are also under the BKL.

So yes its nasty, and we should probably grow a minor lock to protect that.

Dave.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/