[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200912042055.55565.oliver@neukum.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 20:55:55 +0100
From: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>, stable@...nel.org,
Rickard Bellini <rickard.bellini@...csson.com>,
"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
Torgny Johansson <torgny.johansson@...csson.com>,
Kernel development list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Driver core: fix race in dev_driver_string
Am Freitag, 4. Dezember 2009 17:50:40 schrieb Greg KH:
> On Fri, Dec 04, 2009 at 05:16:19PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Freitag, 4. Dezember 2009 17:06:57 schrieb Alan Stern:
> > > Oliver:
> > >
> > > We don't have to worry about the device structure being deallocated
> > > while the routine is running. If that happens it's a bug in the
> > > caller: improper refcounting.
> >
> >
> > That raises two points
> >
> > 1. am I supposed to get a reference just so that I can use dev_err?
>
> No, you should already have a reference on the device when doing the
> call, right?
No, why? Consider this:
int write(...)
{
...
mutex_lock(&instance->lock);
if (instance->disconnected) {
dev_dbg(instance->dev,"writing to disconnected device");
rv = -ENODEV;
} else {
res = usb_submit_urb(...);
rv = res < 0 ? -EIO : count;
}
mutex_unlock(&instance->lock);
return rv;
}
void disconnect(...)
{
...
mutex_lock(&instance->lock);
instance->disconnected = 1;
usb_kill_urb(...);
usb_kill_urb(...);
mutex_unlock(&instance->lock);
}
This would be perfectly valid code without any references taken save
for the pesky dev_dbg()
Regards
Oliver
--
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