Hi Oliver, do you see any reason why the patch below shouldn't be applied? Since you refactored the locking in commit 07903407, I don't see a reason why we'd need the lock_kernel() there. (the one in hiddev_connect() is of course a completely different story). Thanks. From: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> Subject: [PATCH] HID: remove BKL from hiddev_ioctl_usage() The race between ioctl and disconnect is guarded by low level hiddev device mutex (existancelock) since the commit 07903407 ("HID: hiddev cleanup -- handle all error conditions properly"), therefore we can remove the lock_kernel() from hiddev_ioctl_usage(). Signed-off-by: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@xxxxxxx> --- drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c | 5 ----- 1 files changed, 0 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c index 8b6ee24..867e084 100644 --- a/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c +++ b/drivers/hid/usbhid/hiddev.c @@ -450,7 +450,6 @@ static noinline int hiddev_ioctl_usage(struct hiddev *hiddev, unsigned int cmd, uref_multi = kmalloc(sizeof(struct hiddev_usage_ref_multi), GFP_KERNEL); if (!uref_multi) return -ENOMEM; - lock_kernel(); uref = &uref_multi->uref; if (cmd == HIDIOCGUSAGES || cmd == HIDIOCSUSAGES) { if (copy_from_user(uref_multi, user_arg, @@ -528,7 +527,6 @@ static noinline int hiddev_ioctl_usage(struct hiddev *hiddev, unsigned int cmd, case HIDIOCGCOLLECTIONINDEX: i = field->usage[uref->usage_index].collection_index; - unlock_kernel(); kfree(uref_multi); return i; case HIDIOCGUSAGES: @@ -547,15 +545,12 @@ static noinline int hiddev_ioctl_usage(struct hiddev *hiddev, unsigned int cmd, } goodreturn: - unlock_kernel(); kfree(uref_multi); return 0; fault: - unlock_kernel(); kfree(uref_multi); return -EFAULT; inval: - unlock_kernel(); kfree(uref_multi); return -EINVAL; } -- 1.5.6 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html