On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 05:58:37PM +0900, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 08:08:21AM +0200, Greg KH wrote:
> > On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 01:55:21PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> > > This removes the chrdev_lock from the counter subsystem. This was
> > > intended to prevent opening the chrdev more than once. However, this
> > > doesn't work in practice since userspace can duplicate file descriptors
> > > and pass file descriptors to other processes. Since this protection
> > > can't be relied on, it is best to just remove it.
> >
> > Much better, thanks!
> >
> > One remaining question:
> >
> > > --- a/include/linux/counter.h
> > > +++ b/include/linux/counter.h
> > > @@ -297,7 +297,6 @@ struct counter_ops {
> > > * @events: queue of detected Counter events
> > > * @events_wait: wait queue to allow blocking reads of Counter events
> > > * @events_lock: lock to protect Counter events queue read operations
> > > - * @chrdev_lock: lock to limit chrdev to a single open at a time
> > > * @ops_exist_lock: lock to prevent use during removal
> >
> > Why do you still need 2 locks for the same structure?
> >
> > thanks,
> >
> > greg k-h
>
> Originally there was only the events_lock mutex. Initially I tried using
> it to also limit the chrdev to a single open, but then came across a
> "lock held when returning to user space" warning:
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-arm-kernel/YOq19zTsOzKA8v7c@shinobu/T/#m6072133d418d598a5f368bb942c945e46cfab9a5
>
> Instead of losing the benefits of a mutex lock for protecting the
> events, I ultimately implemented the chrdev_lock separately as an
> atomic_t. If the chrdev_lock is removed, then we'll use events_lock
> solely from now on for this structure.
chrdev_lock should be removed, it doesn't really do what you think it
does, as per the thread yesterday :)
So does this mean you can also drop the ops_exist_lock?
thanks,
greg k-h
