Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1665504
| From | Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | linux.kernel |
| Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex |
| Date | 2017-06-14 09:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <tSaUx-2dU-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink) |
| References | (1 earlier) <tRQCv-6hR-29@gated-at.bofh.it> <tRQMb-6li-25@gated-at.bofh.it> <tRWeR-1ld-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <tS0BQ-46W-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <tS92q-11P-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| Organization | linux.* mail to news gateway |
On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14 June 2017 at 01:55, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> wrote:
>
>>> The mutex code clearly states mutex_trylock() must not be used in
>>> interrupt context (see kernel/locking/mutex.c), hence we used a
>>> semaphore here. Unless the mutex code is changed to allow this, we
>>> cannot switch away from semaphores.
>>
>> Right, that makes a lot of sense. I don't think changing the mutex
>> code is an option here, but I wonder if we can replace the semaphore
>> with something simpler anyway.
>>
>> From what I can tell, it currently does two things:
>>
>> 1. it acts as a simple flag to prevent hid_input_report from derefencing
>> the hid->driver pointer during initialization and exit. I think this could
>> be done equally well using a simple atomic set_bit()/test_bit() or similar.
>>
>> 2. it prevents the hid->driver pointer from becoming invalid while an
>> asynchronous hid_input_report() is in progress. This actually seems to
>> be a reference counting problem rather than a locking problem.
>> I don't immediately see how to better address it, or how exactly this
>> could go wrong in practice, but I would naively expect that either
>> hdev->driver->remove() needs to wait for the last user of hdev->driver
>> to complete, or we need kref_get/kref_put in hid_input_report()
>> to trigger the actual release function.
>
> Thank you everyone for the comments. I'll resend the patch with Benjamin's
> comments incorporated and address the changes in the second semaphore later.
I hope that David or someone else can provide some more feedback on
my interpretation above first so we can decide how this should be
handled. Right now, I wouldn't know how to address point 2 above.
Arnd
Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
[PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> - 2017-06-13 11:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-06-13 11:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Benjamin Tissoires <benjamin.tissoires@redhat.com> - 2017-06-13 12:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> - 2017-06-13 12:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-06-13 22:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> - 2017-06-13 17:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-06-13 22:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> - 2017-06-14 07:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-06-14 09:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> - 2017-06-14 09:50 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de> - 2017-06-14 14:00 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com> - 2017-06-19 12:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH v2] HID: Replace semaphore driver_lock with mutex Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@linaro.org> - 2017-06-13 12:20 +0200
csiph-web