[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200612201047.20842.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:47:20 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: J <jhnlmn@...oo.com>, linux-usb-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Possible race condition in usb-serial.c
Am Dienstag, 19. Dezember 2006 23:33 schrieb J:
> Thank you for the response.
>
> > This code depends on protection from BKL.
>
> Really? I cannot find many lock_kernel calls in
> USB directory and those, which I can find,
> don't appear to protect usb_serial_disconnect
> and serial_close from being called at the same time.
serial_close is safe because serial_disconnect lowers the refcount
by one. usb_serial_probe() and usb_serial_open() both increment
the refcount; the former implicitly.
> May be the protection is at a higher level?
> Personally I don't beleive it.
> If you know how this thing is supposed to work,
> please, tell me.
The data structure to protect is serial_table. Everything else is
protected by refcounts. Therefore the interesting race is between
open and disconnect. Open is called with BKL (fs/char_dev.c::chrdev_open)
Now, regarding disconnect. It used to be called with BKL held. I haven't been
able to verify that this is still the case. If not, then there's a race.
In addition usb_serial_probe() uses get_free_serial() early in the process
before the device is ready. Without BKL, this too, races with open.
People, do we take BKL in khubd?
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists