On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 06:40:42PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Mer, 2006-08-02 am 15:49 -0700, ysgrifennodd David Miller:
> > > None of the code manipulating tty->count seems to be under
> > > the tty_mutex. Should it be ?
> > > Or is this protected through some other means?
> >
> > It is in the primary code paths at least, all callers of init_dev()
> > (which increments tty->count) grab the mutex and also release_dev()
> > grabs the mutex around tty->count manipulations.
>
> I've been auditing tty code and its joyously bad but only in harmless
> places so far except for one.
>
> init_dev (and caller) relies on tty_mutex to ensure that the
> driver->ttys list is protected from things going away.
>
> release_mem() removes stuff from the said list and frees memory. It is
> not always called under tty_mutex and that appears very dubious to me at
> the moment although tty->closing and the BKL *might* be sufficient.
Against my better judgment I was poring over that code until the wee
hours last night, and one thing crossed my mind re: the assumptions made
about the BKL in that subsystem. Now that the BKL is preemtible, do
any of those assumptions break ?
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
