On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:58:58PM +0100, Gianluca Anzolin wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:27:20PM +0100, Gianluca Anzolin wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 09:20:44PM +0100, Gianluca Anzolin wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 02:34:12PM -0500, Peter Hurley wrote:
> > > >
> > > > This solution is acceptable to me, but I think the comment should briefly
> > > > explain why this fix is necessary, and the changelog should explain why in detail.
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps with a fixme comment that rfcomm_tty_install() should just take over
> > > > the port reference (instead of adding one) and rfcomm_tty_cleanup() should
> > > > conditionally release on RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP.
> > > >
> > > > Because then:
> > > > 1) this fix would not be necessary.
> > > > 2) the release in rfcomm_tty_hangup() would not be necessary
> > > > 3) the second release in rfcomm_release_dev would not be necessary
> > > > 4) the RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED bit could be removed
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Peter Hurley
> > >
> > > Taking over the refcount in the install method would certainly look better. I'm
> > > going to test it ASAP :D
> > >
> > > But why getting rid of the release in in rfcomm_tty_hangup()?
> > > We could lose the bluetooth connection at any time and the dlc callback
> > > would have to hangup the tty (and release the port if necessary).
> > >
> > > Also the RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED bit should still be necessary if the port is
> > > created without the RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP flag.
> > >
> > > Besides any process could release the port behind us (with the command rfcomm
> > > release rfcomm1 for example).
> > >
> > > Gianluca
> >
> > Nevermind I figured it out the reason...
>
> I'm testing the attached patch ATM, which does what you described. It works
> very well.
>
> It doesn't remove the RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASE flag yet, another patch should remove
> that bit.
ok, replying to myself again (sorry for that). RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASE cannot go
away. We have still to manage the case where the port is opened without
RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP.
This last patch does release the port in that situation.
Tested with:
# rfcomm bind 1 <addr>
# rfcomm release 1
and with
# rfcomm connect 1 <addr>
Thanks,
Gianluca
diff --git a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/tty.c b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/tty.c
index 84fcf9f..0357dcf 100644
--- a/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/tty.c
+++ b/net/bluetooth/rfcomm/tty.c
@@ -437,7 +437,8 @@ static int rfcomm_release_dev(void __user *arg)
tty_kref_put(tty);
}
- if (!test_and_set_bit(RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED, &dev->flags))
+ if (!test_bit(RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP, &dev->flags) &&
+ !test_and_set_bit(RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED, &dev->flags))
tty_port_put(&dev->port);
tty_port_put(&dev->port);
@@ -673,6 +674,14 @@ static int rfcomm_tty_install(struct tty_driver *driver, struct tty_struct *tty)
if (err)
rfcomm_tty_cleanup(tty);
+ /* take over the tty_port reference if it was created with the
+ * flag RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP. This will force the release of the port
+ * when the last process closes the tty. This behaviour is expected by
+ * userspace.
+ */
+ if (test_bit(RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP, &dev->flags))
+ tty_port_put(&dev->port);
+
return err;
}
@@ -1010,10 +1019,6 @@ static void rfcomm_tty_hangup(struct tty_struct *tty)
BT_DBG("tty %p dev %p", tty, dev);
tty_port_hangup(&dev->port);
-
- if (test_bit(RFCOMM_RELEASE_ONHUP, &dev->flags) &&
- !test_and_set_bit(RFCOMM_TTY_RELEASED, &dev->flags))
- tty_port_put(&dev->port);
}
static int rfcomm_tty_tiocmget(struct tty_struct *tty)
