[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20191011093633.GD27819@localhost>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 11:36:33 +0200
From: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To: Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>,
Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
Fabien Dessenne <fabien.dessenne@...com>,
Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@...nel.org>,
Harald Freudenberger <freude@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
Heiko Carstens <heiko.carstens@...ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org,
freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] treewide: fix interrupted release
On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:50:43PM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 03:13:29PM +0200, Johan Hovold wrote:
> > Two old USB drivers had a bug in them which could lead to memory leaks
> > if an interrupted process raced with a disconnect event.
> >
> > Turns out we had a few more driver in other subsystems with the same
> > kind of bug in them.
> Random funny idea: Could we do some debug annotations (akin to
> might_sleep) that splats when you might_sleep_interruptible somewhere
> where interruptible sleeps are generally a bad idea? Like in
> fops->release?
There's nothing wrong with interruptible sleep in fops->release per se,
it's just that drivers cannot return -ERESTARTSYS and friends and expect
to be called again later.
The return value from release() is ignored by vfs, and adding a splat in
__fput() to catch these buggy drivers might be overkill.
Johan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists