On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 00:35:48 +0100,
Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2018-01-15 at 13:34 +0100, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Takashi Iwai <tiwai@xxxxxxx>
> >
> > commit 900498a34a3ac9c611e9b425094c8106bdd7dc1c upstream.
> >
> > PCM OSS read/write loops keep taking the mutex lock for the whole
> > read/write, and this might take very long when the exceptionally high
> > amount of data is given. Also, since it invokes with mutex_lock(),
> > the concurrent read/write becomes unbreakable.
> >
> > This patch tries to address these issues by replacing mutex_lock()
> > with mutex_lock_interruptible(), and also splits / re-takes the lock
> > at each read/write period chunk, so that it can switch the context
> > more finely if requested.
> [...]
> > @@ -1414,18 +1417,18 @@ static ssize_t snd_pcm_oss_write1(struct
> > xfer += tmp;
> > if ((substream->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK) != 0 &&
> > tmp != runtime->oss.period_bytes)
> > - break;
> > + tmp = -EAGAIN;
> > }
> > + err:
> > + mutex_unlock(&runtime->oss.params_lock);
> > + if (tmp < 0)
> > + break;
> > if (signal_pending(current)) {
> > tmp = -ERESTARTSYS;
> > - goto err;
> > + break;
> > }
> > + tmp = 0;
> > }
> > - mutex_unlock(&runtime->oss.params_lock);
> > - return xfer;
> > -
> > - err:
> > - mutex_unlock(&runtime->oss.params_lock);
> > return xfer > 0 ? (snd_pcm_sframes_t)xfer : tmp;
> > }
> [...]
>
> Some of the "goto err" statements in the loop are conditional on tmp <=
> 0, but if tmp == 0 this will no longer terminate the loop. Is that
> intentional or a bug?
The patch rather fixes the endless loop: the signal_pending() check is
added after goto err, so that it aborts the loop properly.
thanks,
Takashi