[PATCH 0/1] Bluetooth: hidp: Add support for hidraw HIDIOCGFEATURE and HIDIOCSFEATURE

From: Alan Ott
Date: Sun Jun 13 2010 - 18:18:57 EST

This patch adds support to the bluetooth hidp module for getting and setting FEATURE reports from hidraw, as requested by Jiri Kosina. This patch depends on the patch named:

[PATCH v2] HID: Add Support for Setting and Getting Feature Reports from hidraw

I have a couple of concerns with this patch, which I hope someone here can clarify and/or help me with.

1. Is it ok to use test_bit()/set_bit()/clear_bit() on session->flags, when other parts in the code may not be using these functions to access it? This currently isn't a problem because the other code which uses flags only sets bits at initialization time (and deletion time). best I can tell, flags is never actually used or read other than by my new code (using the *_bit() functions). The solution here may be to change the other code to use the *_bit() functions to access flags.

2. Is the loop in hidp_get_raw_report() sufficient without a mutex, since I'm synchronizing with the atomic call to test_bit() (and clear_bit())? I have convinced myself that in this case, with one reader, and one writer, to one pointer, synchronized with wait_event_interruptible_timeout() and atomic access through test_bit(), that a mutex is not needed.

3. A blocking, synchronous GET_REPORT transfer was easy when I implemented this for USB because data is both sent and received as part of a single control transfer. Because of the nature of Bluetooth however, where it is viewed more as an asynchronous network device, and with hidraw allowing multiple handles to a single device to exist, there could be a race when two handles call the hidp_get_raw_report() function concurrently, requesting the same report. I've convinced myself that this is not a problem, because since both callers requested the same report, the worst that could happen is that one could get a report which is slightly out of date.

Consider the following case:
1. Client 1 requests report (Userspace call to HIDIOCGFEATURE)
2. Client 2 requests report (Userspace call to HIDIOCGFEATURE)
3. Client 1's report is returned, and delivered to BOTH clients
4. Client 2's report is returned (and discarded)

Note here that Client 1's report and Client 2's report are the same report, ie: they reflect the state of the same data on the device, just at different times. In this case, they are indeed exactly the same data, but consider this case:
1. Client 1 requests report (Userspace call to HIDIOCGFEATURE)
2. Client 2 SETS report (Userspace call to HIDIOCSFEATURE)
2. Client 2 requests report (Userspace call to HIDIOCGFEATURE)
3. Client 1's report is returned, and delivered to Clients 1 and 2
4. Client 2's report is returned

In this case, client 2 receives OLD data (since it set new data, and the call to write the reports is currently not synchronous). To make writes synchronous, we'd run into the same problem, of two writes happening concurrently, and the 2nd one receiving the ACK from the first one.

The questions here are:
1. Is this a problem? It's only an issues if two handles (in two separate threads) are reading and writing the device concurrently. I'd expect that there would be bigger problems in this case than receiving an old report.
2. If this is a problem, is there a way to synchronize on the control socket for the device (as opposed to just this session)? In this case GET_REPORT and SET_REPORT would lock access to the control socket (for all clients accessing the device) while they are active.

Your feedback is most appreciated,


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/