Re: [PATCH RESEND] tty: don't dead lock while flushing workqueue

[Sebastian Andrzej Siewior]

On 12/03/2012 06:41 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> The lock logic for tty_set_ldisc() is wrong. Despite existing code in
> tty_set_ldisc() and tty_ldisc_hangup(), the ldisc_mutex does **not**
> (and should not) play a role in acquiring or releasing ldisc references.
> The only thing that needs to happen here is below (don't actually use
> below because I just hand-edited it):

Hmm. What about I stay in sync with the code that is already in tree
and if the wrong locking gets removed in both places later on?

Alan, what do you prefer?

> > See http://lkml.org/lkml/2012/11/21/347
> >
> >   drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c |   13 +++++++++----
> >   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c b/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c
> > index 0f2a2c5..fb76818 100644
> > --- a/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c
> > +++ b/drivers/tty/tty_ldisc.c
> > @@ -930,16 +930,21 @@ void tty_ldisc_release(struct tty_struct *tty, struct tty_struct *o_tty)
> >   	 */
> >
> > - 	tty_lock_pair(tty, o_tty);
> >   	tty_ldisc_halt(tty);
> > 	tty_ldisc_flush_works(tty);
>
>
> > +	tty_lock_pair(tty, o_tty);
> >   	/* This will need doing differently if we need to lock */
> >   	tty_ldisc_kill(tty);
> > -
> >   	if (o_tty)
> >   		tty_ldisc_kill(o_tty);

Sebastian
--
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/