linux-kernel - Re: Locking in the clk API

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 27 Jan 2011 21:07:29 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Saravana Kannan <skannan@...eaurora.org>,
	Lorenzo Pieralisi <Lorenzo.Pieralisi@....com>,
	Vincent Guittot <vincent.guittot@...aro.org>,
	linux-sh <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Ben Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
	Sascha Hauer <s.hauer@...gutronix.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Colin Cross <ccross@...gle.com>,
	Ben Dooks <ben-linux@...ff.org>,
	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
	Jeremy Kerr <jeremy.kerr@...onical.com>,
	linux-arm-kernel <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	Richard Zhao <linuxzsc@...il.com>
Subject: Re: Locking in the clk API

> > For internal tree purposes, does .set_termios need to be atomic? Can it  
> > grab mutexes instead of spinlock?
> 
> I think I already answered that question above where I said "protect
> against the interrupt handler accessing the port->* stuff".

I'm not sure you answered it correctly however as the locking nowdays is
a bit different.

Architecturally the termios handling doesn't need a spin lock nor is it
called under one. In fact it's vital this is the case because of USB.

I see nothing in the 2.6.37 cpm_uart code that isn't trivially fixable.
There is already a mutex protecting termios serialization so all you seem
to need to do is call clk_set_rate after rather than before dropping the
lock surely ?

Oh if you are looking at the cpm_uart code and care about it the following
in the code isn't safe as tty could possibly go NULL and be freed under
you.

     struct tty_struct *tty = port->state->port.tty;

and you ought to be doing

	tty = tty_port_tty_get(&port->state->port);

	if (tty)
		blah;
	tty_kref_put(tty);	/* put NULL is a no-op anyway */

probably in the main irq handler and pass tty to the helpers that need it.

Alan
--
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/