On 29/08/2024 13:54, 胡连勤 wrote:
> From: Lianqin Hu <hulianqin@xxxxxxxx>
>
> Considering that in some extreme cases, when the unbind operation
> is being executed, gserial_disconnect has already cleared gser->ioport,
> triggering a gadget reconfiguration at this time and gs_read_complete
> gets called afterwards, which results in accessing null pointer,
> add a null pointer check to prevent this situation.
>
...
>
> static void gs_write_complete(struct usb_ep *ep, struct usb_request *req)
> {
> - struct gs_port *port = ep->driver_data;
> + struct gs_port *port;
> + unsigned long flags;
> +
> + spin_lock_irqsave(&serial_port_lock, flags);
> + port = ep->driver_data;
> +
> + if (!port) {
> + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&serial_port_lock, flags);
> + return;
> + }
>
> spin_lock(&port->port_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&serial_port_lock);
You pinged us for this after 4 days. This is damn v9 and still
unresolved comments from previous review.
Explain, how did you resolve Greg's comment about this unintuitive code:
https://lore.kernel.org/all/2024082251-grief-profanity-b0da@gregkh/
Pattern of immediacy, rush and impatience was used in one of latest big
messes (just google about harassing open source maintainers by some
random contributors).
I suggest go back to drawing board and improve the code instead of
making it spaghetti without explanation, even though we asked for that
explanation.
Best regards,
Krzysztof
