[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20130517114845.GA2602@8bytes.org>
Date: Fri, 17 May 2013 13:48:45 +0200
From: Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>
To: Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
Cc: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tty: Add missing lock in n_tty_write()
Hi Peter,
thanks for you explanations. They helped me to better understand what is
happening now.
On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:10:43PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 03:48 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
> Agreed. Those functions look written for single-producer/single-consumer
> i/o model. (That's why I asked about CONFIG_CONSOLE_POLL=y as well because
> that doesn't look thread-safe either).
Ok, I checked that. CONFIG_CONSOLE_POLL is on in that kernel.
> Just to be clear here: there's a difference between a console driver
> and a tty driver.
>
> The console driver's write() method is serialized with the global
> console_lock() so parallel console writes are not possible.
>
> No such guarantee exists for the tty driver write() method, although it
> probably wouldn't be difficult to provide that guarantee (since the
> line discipline write() is already serialized by tty->atomic_write_lock).
Okay, so it is safe to say that currently the drivers write() (and
put_chars()) functions need to expect to be called concurrently and
therefore they have to serialize themselves when they need it, right?
Joerg
--
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