[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.1206080938400.1360-100000@iolanthe.rowland.org>
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 09:40:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
To: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] driver core: fix shutdown races with probe/remove(v1)
On Fri, 8 Jun 2012, Ming Lei wrote:
> Firstly, .shutdown callback may touch a uninitialized hardware
> if dev->driver is set and .probe is not completed.
>
> Secondly, device_shutdown() may dereference a null pointer to cause
> oops when dev->driver is cleared after it is checked in
> device_shutdown().
>
> So just hold device lock and its parent lock if it has to fix the
> races.
>
> Cc: Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
> ---
> drivers/base/core.c | 8 ++++++++
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/base/core.c b/drivers/base/core.c
> index 346be8b..cbc8bd2 100644
> --- a/drivers/base/core.c
> +++ b/drivers/base/core.c
> @@ -1820,6 +1820,11 @@ void device_shutdown(void)
> list_del_init(&dev->kobj.entry);
> spin_unlock(&devices_kset->list_lock);
>
> + /*hold lock[s] to avoid races with .probe/.release*/
> + if (dev->parent)
> + device_lock(dev->parent);
> + device_lock(dev);
Would you prefer to use device_trylock in a loop? I guess this comes
down to which you prefer: a hang during shutdown, or a crash. :-)
Alan Stern
--
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