[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CA+1xoqezLCQh_fqJ1iNAs25X7Fm24W=-0J8zTZuVVJQnWTtSLg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 May 2012 18:03:07 +0200
From: Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@...il.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-serial@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] tty_lock: Localise the lock
Hi Alan,
On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk> wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/tty/pty.c b/drivers/tty/pty.c
> index 5505ffc..d6fa842 100644
> --- a/drivers/tty/pty.c
> +++ b/drivers/tty/pty.c
> @@ -62,9 +63,7 @@ static void pty_close(struct tty_struct *tty, struct file *filp)
> mutex_unlock(&devpts_mutex);
> }
> #endif
> - tty_unlock();
> tty_vhangup(tty->link);
> - tty_lock();
> }
> }
I don't believe that this change is correct.
Consider the following scenario:
tty_release -> tty_lock -> pty_close -> tty_vhangup -> tty_lock
Which would cause a deadlock.
--
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