[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20200803115328.GA955269@kroah.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 2020 13:53:28 +0200
From: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com
Cc: arnd@...db.de, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andrianov@...ras.ru,
ldv-project@...uxtesting.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: char: applicom.c: Add lock for protecting
DeviceErrorCount
On Mon, Aug 03, 2020 at 04:20:49PM +0530, madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com wrote:
> From: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
>
> The variable DeviceErrorCount is used to keep track of the number of
> errors in read, write and interrupt routines, however it was not
> protected by proper locking.
> Therefore, this patch adds a spinlock: error_lock to protect the
> variable.
>
> Found by Linux Driver Verification project (linuxtesting.org).
>
> Signed-off-by: Madhuparna Bhowmik <madhuparnabhowmik10@...il.com>
> ---
> drivers/char/applicom.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/char/applicom.c b/drivers/char/applicom.c
> index 14b2d8034c51..6df7450b8b99 100644
> --- a/drivers/char/applicom.c
> +++ b/drivers/char/applicom.c
> @@ -106,6 +106,7 @@ static DECLARE_WAIT_QUEUE_HEAD(FlagSleepRec);
> static unsigned int WriteErrorCount; /* number of write error */
> static unsigned int ReadErrorCount; /* number of read error */
> static unsigned int DeviceErrorCount; /* number of device error */
> +DEFINE_SPINLOCK(error_lock); /* lock to protect error count variables */
That's a horrible global name, shouldn't it be static?
>
> static ssize_t ac_read (struct file *, char __user *, size_t, loff_t *);
> static ssize_t ac_write (struct file *, const char __user *, size_t, loff_t *);
> @@ -428,7 +429,9 @@ static ssize_t ac_write(struct file *file, const char __user *buf, size_t count,
> spin_unlock_irqrestore(&apbs[IndexCard].mutex, flags);
> printk(KERN_WARNING "APPLICOM driver write error board %d, DataFromPcReady = %d\n",
> IndexCard,(int)readb(apbs[IndexCard].RamIO + DATA_FROM_PC_READY));
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&error_lock, flags);
Why all of these irqsave?
> DeviceErrorCount++;
Does this really matter? Who cares if we drop one of these, or any
other of these debugging-only values?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists