On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 09:11:06AM +0200, Jiri Kosina wrote: > On Tue, 13 Oct 2009, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > > > Umm, I don't like assuming that EAGAIN can only mean that > > mutex_lock_interruptible() failed, seq_file core may theoretically > > return -EAGAIN too. In fact, looking through seq_file.c traverse() does > > return -EAGAIN in certain cases... > > Damn, you are right -- I explicitly checked for this, but have completely > overlooked the "Eoveflow:" branch in traverse(), which returns EAGAIN. So > my previous patch is of course incorrect. > > > Input: fix locking issue in /proc/bus/input/ handlers > > > > From: Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@xxxxxxxxx> > > > > input_devices_seq_start() uses mutex_lock_interruptible() to acquire > > the input_mutex, but doesn't properly handle the situation when the > > call fails (for example due to interrupt). Instead of returning NULL > > (which indicates that there is no more data) we should return > > ERR_PTR()-encoded error. > > > > We also need explicit flag indicating whether input_mutex was acquired > > since input_devices_seq_stop() is called whether input_devices_seq_start() > > was successful or not. > > > > The same applies to input_handlers_seq_start(). > > > > Reported-by: iceberg <strakh@xxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Torokhov <dtor@xxxxxxx> > > Yup, looks OK to me. > Putting you as "Reviewed-by.." then, OK? -- Dmitry -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-input" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
