[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 05 May 2011 22:00:42 +0100
From: Jack Stone <jwjstone@...tmail.fm>
To: tim.gardner@...onical.com
CC: linux-fbdev@...r.kernel.org, lethal@...ux-sh.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Andy Whitcroft <apw@...onical.com>,
Leann Ogasawara <leann.ogasawara@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fbcon -- fix race between open and removal of framebuffers
On 05/05/2011 18:41, tim.gardner@...onical.com wrote:
> +static struct fb_info *get_framebuffer_info(int idx)
> +__acquires(®istered_lock)
> +__releases(®istered_lock)
> +{
> + struct fb_info *fb_info;
> +
> + spin_lock(®istered_lock);
> + fb_info = registered_fb[idx];
> + fb_info->ref_count++;
> + spin_unlock(®istered_lock);
> +
> + return fb_info;
> +}
> +
> static int
> fb_open(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> __acquires(&info->lock)
> @@ -1363,13 +1421,17 @@ __releases(&info->lock)
>
> if (fbidx >= FB_MAX)
> return -ENODEV;
> - info = registered_fb[fbidx];
> + info = get_framebuffer_info(fbidx);
> if (!info)
> request_module("fb%d", fbidx);
> - info = registered_fb[fbidx];
> + info = get_framebuffer_info(fbidx);
> if (!info)
> return -ENODEV;
If the first get_framebuffer_info succeeds don't you up the ref count
twice? Shouldn't this be:
info = get_framebuffer_info(fbidx);
if (!info) {
request_module("fb%d", fbidx);
info = get_framebuffer_info(fbidx);
}
if (!info)
return -ENODEV;
Thanks,
Jack
--
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