[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 6 Jun 2017 18:47:34 +0200
From: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...ux.intel.com>, fsdevel@...r.kernel.org,
Stephen Boyd <stephen.boyd@...aro.org>,
"Li, Yi" <yi1.li@...ux.intel.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@...il.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
"Michael Kerrisk (man-pages)" <mtk.manpages@...il.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"Fuzzey, Martin" <mfuzzey@...keon.com>,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
jewalt@...innovations.com, rafal@...ecki.pl,
Arend Van Spriel <arend.vanspriel@...adcom.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
atull@...nsource.altera.com,
Moritz Fischer <moritz.fischer@...us.com>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@...el.com>,
Emmanuel Grumbach <emmanuel.grumbach@...el.com>,
Luca Coelho <luciano.coelho@...el.com>,
Kalle Valo <kvalo@...eaurora.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
AKASHI Takahiro <takahiro.akashi@...aro.org>,
David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>,
Peter Jones <pjones@...hat.com>,
Hans de G oede <hdegoede@...hat.com>,
Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] firmware: fix sending -ERESTARTSYS due to signal on
fallback
Adding fsdevel folks.
On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 03:53:16PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > "Unix tradition (and thus almost all applications) believe file store
> > writes to
> > be non signal interruptible. It would not be safe or practical to
> > change that
> > guarantee."
>
> Yep everyone codes
>
> write(disk_file, "foo", 3);
>
> not while(..) blah around it.
Thanks for the confirmation! That's a simple enough explanation.
> > For these two reasons then it would seem best we do two things
> > actually:
> >
> > 1) return -EINTR instead of -EAGAIN when we detect
> > swait_event_interruptible_timeout()
> > got interrupted by a signal (it returns -ERESTARTSYS)
> > 2) Do as you note below and add wait_event_killable_timeout()
>
> Pedantic detail that I don't think affects you
>
> If you have completed a part of the I/O then you should return the byte
> processed count not EINTR, but -1,EINTR if no progress was made.
You are right with some new exceptions and with regards to the future:
The syfs loading interface for firmware currently goes through the
data file exposed on syfs, the respective write op firmware_data_write()
only checks for signals at the beginning. After that its a full one
swoop try to write if you are following the old tradition and are using
a buffer allocated by the firmware API.
If you are using the relatively new request_firmware_into_buf() added
by Stephen Boyd which lets the driver provide the allocated buffer then
we have a loop in firmware_rw() which should be fixed to:
1) Check for signals
2) Do what you noted above.
Furthermore Yi Li over at Intel is adding some new API calls which would
re-use some of this for FPGA firmwares which are also very large, that
work should consider the above and fix appropriately as well.
Luis
Powered by blists - more mailing lists