[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20100504204236.5dc6a34e@linux.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2010 20:42:36 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
To: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Greg Kroah-Hartman" <gregkh@...e.de>
Subject: Re: possible locking bug in tty_open
On Sun, 2 May 2010 22:47:33 +0200
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de> wrote:
> While playing some more with my TTY BKL patches, I stumbled over
> what looks like a bug in tty_open, introduced in e8c6210
> "tty: push the BKL down into the handlers a bit":
>
> After the "retry_open:" label, we first get the tty_mutex
> and then the BKL. However a the end of tty_open, we jump
> back to retry_open with the BKL still held. If we run into
> this case, the tty_open function will be left with the BKL
> still held.
>
> It may be impossible to actually trigger this bug, because
> the path is only taken if a tty driver open function returns
> -ERESTARTSYS without setting signal_pending().
>
> Arnd
I think all we need is probably this
tty: Fix unbalanced BKL handling in error path
Arnd noted:
After the "retry_open:" label, we first get the tty_mutex
and then the BKL. However a the end of tty_open, we jump
back to retry_open with the BKL still held. If we run into
this case, the tty_open function will be left with the BKL
still held.
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>
diff --git a/drivers/char/tty_io.c b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
index 6da962c..fe810a7 100644
--- a/drivers/char/tty_io.c
+++ b/drivers/char/tty_io.c
@@ -1875,6 +1875,7 @@ got_driver:
*/
if (filp->f_op == &hung_up_tty_fops)
filp->f_op = &tty_fops;
+ unlock_kernel();
goto retry_open;
}
unlock_kernel();
--
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