[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080923145807.63f9b904@bike.lwn.net>
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:58:07 -0600
From: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>
To: Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
jmoriss@...ei.org, serue@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, safford@...son.ibm.com,
paulmck@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, debora@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] TPM: update char dev BKL pushdown
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:19:26 -0300
Rajiv Andrade <srajiv@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> + * It's assured that the chip will be opened just once,
> + * by the check of is_open variable, which is protected
> + * by driver_lock.
Taking a look at the code, I'm convinced. BKL removal seems
appropriate.
While I was in the neighborhood, though, something caught my eye:
int tpm_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
{
struct tpm_chip *chip = file->private_data;
flush_scheduled_work();
Here you have waited until you've got nothing in the workqueue.
spin_lock(&driver_lock);
file->private_data = NULL;
del_singleshot_timer_sync(&chip->user_read_timer);
But, until you get here, your timer could have resubmitted a job into
the workqueue - job which could run after you've freed "chip" and
forgotten all about it. I think you need either a "don't resubmit" flag,
or you need to delete the timer first.
jon
--
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