Re: [Fwd: [PATCH v2 0/4] TTY: port hangup and close fixes]

[Peter Hurley]

On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 23:10 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 03/05/2013 11:02 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 22:56 +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 03/05/2013 06:06 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> >>>>> @@ -225,15 +232,13 @@ void tty_port_hangup(struct tty_port *port)
> >>>>         spin_lock_irqsave(&port->lock, flags);
> >>>>         port->count = 0;
> >>>>         port->flags &= ~ASYNC_NORMAL_ACTIVE;
> >>>> -       if (port->tty) {
> >>>> +       if (port->tty)
> >>>>                 set_bit(TTY_IO_ERROR, &port->tty->flags);
> >>>> -               tty_kref_put(port->tty);
> >>>> -       }
> >>>> -       port->tty = NULL;
> >>>>         spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
> >>>>> +       tty_port_shutdown(port, port->tty);
> >>>>
> >>>> What prevents port->tty to be NULL here already?
> >>>
> >>> Nothing. That's why it's tested in tty_port_shutdown() above.
> >>
> >> I know :).
> > 
> > Sorry :)
> > 
> >> But the question is rather don't we want to pass the real
> >> refcounted port->tty (take a snapshot inside the lock) instead?
> > 
> > I think that's why he moved the kref release to after the shutdown (via
> > tty_port_set_tty()) -- but I'm tired and maybe I'm missing something
> > here?
> 
> port->tty can be changed right after the unlock.

Right. My bad. Thanks for catching this.

>  So I'm thinking about
> something like this:
> 
> if (port->tty)
>    set_bit(TTY_IO_ERROR, &port->tty->flags);
> tty = port->tty; <=== take a snapshot
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&port->lock, flags);
> tty_port_shutdown(port, tty); <=== use the snapshot
> set_tty_port(port, NULL); <=== put kref on that tty

Yeah, that's better.

Regards,
Peter Hurley

--
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/