[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20110211100439.GA1938@polaris.bitmath.org>
Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:04:39 +0100
From: "Henrik Rydberg" <rydberg@...omail.se>
To: tlambert@...omium.org
Cc: dmitry.torokhov@...il.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Input: fixed EVIOCGRAB iterative grab/release.
Hi Terry,
> Fixed order of calls in evdev_ungrab to allow iterative use of
> code which grabs and releases input event devices.
>
> Signed-off-by: Terry Lambert <tlambert@...omium.org>
> ---
> drivers/input/evdev.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/input/evdev.c b/drivers/input/evdev.c
> index c8471a2..0bac8da 100644
> --- a/drivers/input/evdev.c
> +++ b/drivers/input/evdev.c
> @@ -160,9 +160,9 @@ static int evdev_ungrab(struct evdev *evdev, struct evdev_client *client)
> if (evdev->grab != client)
> return -EINVAL;
>
> + input_release_device(&evdev->handle);
> rcu_assign_pointer(evdev->grab, NULL);
> synchronize_rcu();
> - input_release_device(&evdev->handle);
I imagine the current code could lead to a race situation if there
were no other locks involved. However, evdev_ungrab() is always called
under evdev->mutex. As Dmitry hinted, grabbing "usually works", so
perhaps you could device a tiny program which reproduces the problem?
Thanks,
Henrik
--
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