On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 7:22 AM, Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 14 June 2017 at 01:55, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@xxxxxxxx> 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
--
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
