[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20131031155653.GA16944@infradead.org>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 08:56:53 -0700
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Douglas Gilbert <dgilbert@...erlog.com>
Cc: SCSI development list <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
James Bottomley <james.bottomley@...senpartnership.com>,
vaughan <vaughan.cao@...cle.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sg: O_EXCL and other lock handling
> + struct semaphore or_sem; /* protect co-incident opens and releases */
Seems like this should be a mutex.
> sfds_list_empty(Sg_device *sdp)
> {
> unsigned long flags;
> int ret;
>
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&sdp->sfd_lock, flags);
> + ret = list_empty(&sdp->sfds);
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&sdp->sfd_lock, flags);
> return ret;
Protecting just a list_empty check with a local will give you racy
results. Seems like you should take the look over the check and the
resulting action that modifies the list. That'd also mean replacing the
wait_event* calls with open coded prepare_wait / finish_wait loops.
> + down(&sdp->or_sem);
> + alone = sfds_list_empty(sdp);
> + if ((flags & O_EXCL) && (O_RDONLY == (flags & O_ACCMODE))) {
> + retval = -EPERM; /* Don't allow O_EXCL with read only access */
> + goto error_out;
> + }
Seems like the pure flags check should move to the beginning of the
function before taking any locks.
--
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