[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0912041702510.2616-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 17:07:11 -0500 (EST)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Oliver Neukum <oliver@...kum.org>
cc: Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>, <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
On Fri, 4 Dec 2009, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> OK, yes. It's a bad example. However this is tricky.
>
> This is a bug then:
>
> mutex_lock(...);
>
> if (instance->error) {
> rv = instance->error;
> instance->error = 0;
> dev_dbg(instance->dev,...);
Unless you can guarantee at this point that instance->dev isn't stale,
it is indeed a bug.
> goto err_out;
> }
>
> rv = -ENODEV;
> if (instance->disconnected)
> goto err_out;
>
> > One approach is to set instance->dev to NULL in disconnect(). That
> > wouldn't do much good for your dev_dbg(), though. A better solution is
> > to refcount the instance->dev pointer: Take a reference to the device
> > when setting instance->dev and drop it when clearing instance->dev (or
> > when instance is freed).
>
> That would mean that I am forced to adopt refcounting just to print
> something. This seems very inelegant.
What can I say? When the something you want to print can be
deallocated at any time, there isn't much choice.
Maybe reference counting is inelegant; it depends on your point of
view. Can you think of a more elegant way to make sure that a pointer
isn't stale?
Alan Stern
--
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