[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <3E107A3D-D8E2-43E5-8DCB-F9DE2F5AAAEA@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 2017 14:23:46 +0100
From: Okash Khawaja <okash.khawaja@...il.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>,
Samuel Thibault <samuel.thibault@...-lyon.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
William Hubbs <w.d.hubbs@...il.com>,
Chris Brannon <chris@...-brannons.com>,
Kirk Reiser <kirk@...sers.ca>,
"speakup@...ux-speakup.org" <speakup@...ux-speakup.org>,
"devel@...verdev.osuosl.org" <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>
Subject: Re: [patch 0/3] Re: tty contention resulting from tty_open_by_device export
> On 17 Jul 2017, at 13:31, Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jul 13, 2017 at 12:29:54PM +0100, Okash Khawaja wrote:
>>> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 07:20:28PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>
>>>> When opening from kernel, we don't use file pointer. The count mismatch
>>>> is between tty->count and #fd's. So opening from kernel leads to #fd's
>>>> being less than tty->count. I thought this difference is relevant to
>>>> user-space opening of tty, and not to kernel opening of tty. Can you
>>>> suggest how to address this mismatch?
>>>
>>> Your kernel reference is the same as having a file open reference so I
>>> think this actually needs addressing in the maths. In other words count
>>> the number of kernel references and also add that into the test for
>>> check_tty_count (kernel references + #fds == count).
>>>
>>> I'd really like to keep this right because that check has a long history
>>> of catching really nasty race conditions in the tty code. The
>>> open/close/hangup code is really fragile so worth the debugability.
>>
>> I see. Okay based this, check_tty_count can be easily updated to take
>> into account kernel references.
>
> Ok, I'll drop this series from my "to-apply" queue and wait for you to
> redo it.
Sure. I can fix the tty->count mismatch based on Alan's suggestion. However I don't understand why the exclusivity flag should belong to tty_port and not tty_struct. It will be good to know why.
Thanks,
Okash
Powered by blists - more mailing lists