[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <465D800B.2050502@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 22:45:47 +0900
From: Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com>
To: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>
CC: gregkh@...e.de, dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, oneukum@...e.de,
rpurdie@...ys.net, stern@...land.harvard.edu, maneesh@...ibm.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] sysfs: use sysfs_lock to protect the sysfs_dirent
tree
Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 29 May 2007 01:36:27 +0900,
> Tejun Heo <htejun@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> @@ -795,6 +822,8 @@ static int sysfs_readdir(struct file * f
>> i++;
>> /* fallthrough */
>> default:
>> + spin_lock(&sysfs_lock);
>> +
>> pos = &parent_sd->s_children;
>> while (*pos != cursor)
>> pos = &(*pos)->s_sibling;
>> @@ -827,6 +856,8 @@ static int sysfs_readdir(struct file * f
>> /* put cursor back in */
>> cursor->s_sibling = *pos;
>> *pos = cursor;
>> +
>> + spin_unlock(&sysfs_lock);
>> }
>> return 0;
>> }
>
> Here's the cause of the "sleeping function called" I saw. filldir() is
> called under sysfs_lock, but calls copy_to_user()... This means you
> can't use sysfs_lock for protection here.
Ouch, right. I think we can get away with a temp buffer there. Thanks.
--
tejun
-
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