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:	Sun, 12 Feb 2012 19:06:11 +0000
From:	Al Viro <viro@...IV.linux.org.uk>
To:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Cc:	Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	user-mode-linux-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
Subject: Re: your mail

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 01:40:47PM +0100, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> > Is tty_kref_put() safe in interrupt?  Here it seems to be OK, but in other
> > callers...  More or less at random: drivers/tty/serial/lantiq.c has it
> > called from lqasc_rx_int().  It seems to be possible to have it end up
> > calling ->ops->shutdown() and in this case that'd be lqasc_shutdown().
> > Which does a bunch of free_irq(), including the ->rx_irq, i.e. the one
> > we have it called from.  Alan?
> 
> I'm not Alan, but will reply anyway. Yes, it is safe (unless the driver
> does something tricky). In the driver you mention, this is uart_ops,
> called from tty_port_operations' ->shutdown. And that's a different from
> tty_operations' ->shutdown.
> 
> Yes, there are:
> * tty->ops
> * tty_port->ops
> * uart_port->ops
> 
> uart_port->ops->shutdown is supposed to tear down interrupts like in
> lantiq.c. It is called from tty_port->ops->shutdown. And that one is
> allowed to be called only from user context (tty->ops->close and
> tty->ops->hangup).

Yecchhh...  If I'm reading (and grepping) it right, there are only two
non-default instance of tty_operations ->shutdown() - pty and vt ones.
Lovely...  And while we are at it, vt instance is definitely not safe
from interrupts - calls console_lock().  Not that it was relevant in
this case...

It's probably too late in this case, but I would've called that method
->sync_cleanup().  Assuming I'm not misreading its intent and history...
--
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

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ