Matthias Kaehlcke wrote:
El Tue, Apr 24, 2007 at 07:53:04PM +0200 Oliver Neukum ha dit:
Am Dienstag, 24. April 2007 19:49 schrieb Matthias Kaehlcke:
@@ -1706,7 +1706,7 @@ static int rp_write(struct tty_struct *tty,
if (count <= 0 || rocket_paranoia_check(info, "rp_write"))
return 0;
- down_interruptible(&info->write_sem);
+ mutex_lock_interruptible(&info->write_mtx);
This is a bug. It is also present in the current code, but nevertheless
it is a bug. If you use an interruptible lock, you must be ready to deal
with interrupts, which are ignored by this code.
i fear i don't have the experience/knowledge to fix this bug, thanks
for your remark.
i'm a bit confused now about the interruptible locks, i thought using
them means that the process will be waked up when receiving a
signal. what role are playing interrupts when using interruptible locks?
You are correct, interrupts aren't involved. However if the wait is
interrupted by a signal, mutex_lock_interruptible will return a nonzero
return code which needs to be checked for (and likely -ERESTARTSYS or
-EINTR returned), otherwise the code will blindly continue as though it
has locked the mutex even though it has not.
--
Robert Hancock Saskatoon, SK, Canada
To email, remove "nospam" from [email protected]
Home Page: http://www.roberthancock.com/
-
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]
