linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RESEND] tty: don't dead lock while flushing workqueue

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:	Wed, 5 Dec 2012 17:11:40 +0000
From:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To:	Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
Cc:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RESEND] tty: don't dead lock while flushing workqueue

On Wed, 05 Dec 2012 17:15:40 +0100
Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de> wrote:

> On 12/03/2012 06:41 PM, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > The lock logic for tty_set_ldisc() is wrong. Despite existing code in
> > tty_set_ldisc() and tty_ldisc_hangup(), the ldisc_mutex does **not**
> > (and should not) play a role in acquiring or releasing ldisc references.
> > The only thing that needs to happen here is below (don't actually use
> > below because I just hand-edited it):
> 
> Hmm. What about I stay in sync with the code that is already in tree
> and if the wrong locking gets removed in both places later on?
> 
> Alan, what do you prefer?

So long as it ends up right I don't care 8)
--
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/