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
