Re: [PATCH/RFC] tty: serial_core: Move uart_console() check after console registration

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 2:42 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:25 PM, Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 10:31 AM, Geert Uytterhoeven
>> <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> The port->console flag is always false, as uart_console() is called
>>> before the serial console has been registered.
>>
>> I'm not seeing how that is. Everything uart_console() depends on
>> (port->cons, port->cons->index, and port->line) should be set already.
>> Maybe you pass in -1 for index which gets changed to 0 is the only
>> thing I can see. Is doing that valid if you have multiple ports?
>
> Isn't .index always initialized to -1, and set to the actual line number when
> the console is registered? That's how I remember it from when
> register_console() was introduced (in 2.1)...

Okay, the index is also set and gets marked enabled when specified on
the command line (or DT).

>>> Hence for a serial port used as the console, uart_tty_port_shutdown()
>>> will still be called when userspace closes the port, powering it down.
>>> This will lead to a system lock up when the serial console driver writes
>>> to the serial port's registers.
>>>
>>> To fix this, move the setting of port->console after the call to
>>> uart_configure_port(), which registers the serial console.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 761ed4a94582ab29 ("tty: serial_core: convert uart_close to use tty_port_close")
>>> Reported-by: Niklas Söderlund <niklas.soderlund+renesas@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Reported-by: Takeshi Kihara <takeshi.kihara.df@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> RFC because of the comment "If this port is a console, then the spinlock
>>> is already initialised", and the pre-existing code calling
>>> uart_console() before uart_configure_port().
>>
>> So the spinlock is initialized twice which is probably harmless? If
>> the spinlock was initialized by the console, then the index would
>> probably not be -1.
>
> Shouldn't a double initialization cause a warning, with DEBUG_SPINLOCK=y
> (which I have enabled)?

I though only missing init caused warnings.

Anyway, we can't really re-order things as uart_configure_port uses
the spinlock. This has existed this way for some time and is all an
independent of my change and your fix. So for your fix:

Acked-by: Rob Herring <robh@xxxxxxxxxx>

Rob



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SOC]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux