[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <tkrat.96c860da86743cd5@s5r6.in-berlin.de>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2008 00:15:16 +0200 (CEST)
From: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
To: linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [RFC patch 3/3] ieee1394: raw1394: make write() thread-safe
Application programs should use a libraw1394 handle only in a single
thread. The raw1394 driver was apparently relying on this, because it
did nothing to protect its fi->state variable from corruption due to
concurrent accesses.
We now serialize the fi->state accesses. This affects the write() path.
We re-use the state_mutex which was introduced to protect fi->iso_state
accesses in the ioctl() path. These paths and accesses are independent
of each other, hence separate mutexes could be used. But I don't see
much benefit in that.
Signed-off-by: Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
---
drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c | 4 ++++
1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
Index: linux/drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c
===================================================================
--- linux.orig/drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c
+++ linux/drivers/ieee1394/raw1394.c
@@ -2268,6 +2268,8 @@ static ssize_t raw1394_write(struct file
return -EFAULT;
}
+ mutex_lock(&fi->state_mutex);
+
switch (fi->state) {
case opened:
retval = state_opened(fi, req);
@@ -2282,6 +2284,8 @@ static ssize_t raw1394_write(struct file
break;
}
+ mutex_unlock(&fi->state_mutex);
+
if (retval < 0) {
free_pending_request(req);
} else {
--
Stefan Richter
-=====-==--- =--- =----
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
--
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