On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 03:13:35PM -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
> * Greg KH (greg@kroah.com) wrote:
> >
> > Comments? Places I missed protecting?
>
> Is it safe to ignore pcibios_init? This happens after smp_init, but are
> could there be multiple events (that would effect pcibios_sort)?
Yes, I'm ignoring the PCI startup code for now. That's a twisty maze of
horrible passages that I'm going to try to tackle after this step...
> > --- a/drivers/pci/proc.c Tue Jun 17 12:47:27 2003
> > +++ b/drivers/pci/proc.c Tue Jun 17 12:47:27 2003
> > @@ -12,6 +12,7 @@
> > #include <linux/proc_fs.h>
> > #include <linux/seq_file.h>
> > #include <linux/smp_lock.h>
> > +#include "pci.h"
> >
> > #include <asm/uaccess.h>
> > #include <asm/byteorder.h>
> > @@ -311,20 +312,32 @@
> > struct list_head *p = &pci_devices;
> > loff_t n = *pos;
> >
> > - /* XXX: surely we need some locking for traversing the list? */
> > + spin_lock(&pci_bus_lock);
>
> should you just grab this lock here (pci_seq_start), and release in
> pci_seq_stop, holding for duration of ->seq_start() ->seq_next()
> ->seq_stop(). IOW, what happens when you grab list element in
> ->seq_start(), it's removed from list, you reference a bogus ->next
> pointer in ->seq_next()?
Hm, good point. Let me go check to see if we invalidate a ->next
pointer when we remove the device...
Ugh, we don't. And what's even worse is that data could be gone...
I'll work on this one a bit...
thanks for taking a look at this.
greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jun 23 2003 - 22:00:22 EST