[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20090127125255.ea9c0d40.akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 12:52:55 -0800
From: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com>
Cc: hannes@...xchg.org, davej@...hat.com, rjw@...k.pl,
hannes@...urebad.de, krzysztof.h1@...pl, harvey.harrison@...il.com,
stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
righi.andrea@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fbmem: copy_from/to_user() with mutex held (v3)
On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:27:56 +0100
Andrea Righi <righi.andrea@...il.com> wrote:
> Avoid to call copy_from/to_user() with fb_info->lock mutex held in fbmem
> ioctl().
>
> fb_mmap() is called under mm->mmap_sem (A) held, that also acquires
> fb_info->lock (B); fb_ioctl() takes fb_info->lock (B) and does
> copy_from/to_user() that might acquire mm->mmap_sem (A), causing a
> deadlock.
>
> NOTE: it doesn't push down the fb_info->lock in each own driver's
> fb_ioctl(), so there're still potential deadlocks somewhere.
>
Looks good to me.
> ...
>
> static long fb_ioctl(struct file *file, unsigned int cmd, unsigned long arg)
> -__acquires(&info->lock)
> -__releases(&info->lock)
Should the __acquires/__releases annotation be relocated to
do_fb_ioctl()? I've never actually got down and understood those
things.
--
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