[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080623201132.GA6055@joi>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 22:11:52 +0200
From: Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: mchehab@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Al Viro <viro@....linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix open/close race in saa7134
On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 12:53:48PM -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jun 2008 21:22:03 +0200
> Marcin Slusarz <marcin.slusarz@...il.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > If dev->empress_users could be > 1 then ok - it could break, but it
> > can only be 1 or 0. If it's 1 you won't open the device. If it's 0
> > you won't reach ts_close.
> >
> > If you still see the race, please show me the sequence, because I
> > don't (of course when decrementing is the last operation of ts_close).
>
> a decrement in C, without locking, is NOT atomic.
I know about it. But in this code, 2 threads cannot modify empress_users!
This variable should be named empress_used_now or something like that.
Look:
static int ts_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
(...)
err = -EBUSY;
if (!mutex_trylock(&dev->empress_tsq.vb_lock))
goto done;
if (dev->empress_users) <-------------
goto done_up;
/* Unmute audio */
saa_writeb(SAA7134_AUDIO_MUTE_CTRL,
saa_readb(SAA7134_AUDIO_MUTE_CTRL) & ~(1 << 6));
dev->empress_users++; <------ this should be "dev->empress_users = 1;"
file->private_data = dev;
err = 0;
done_up:
mutex_unlock(&dev->empress_tsq.vb_lock);
done:
return err;
}
static int ts_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
(...)
dev->empress_users--; <------------ this should be "dev->empress_users = 0;"
return 0;
}
--
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