Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: fix oops in rfcomm tty code (v2)
From: Marcel Holtmann
Date: Mon Jul 21 2008 - 06:28:05 EST
> >> This is a resend of a patch I sent earlier. It fixes a reproducible
> >> oops (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/13/89 for test case), and I'd
> >> be very happy for some feedback from Bluetooth people. Can this be
> >> included for testing somewhere? I don't have any bluetooth devices
> >> myself, so all my testing is limited to creating/releasing devices
> >> with ioctl (I'm not sure that's good enough).
> >> Dave: I have extended the rfcomm_dev_lock to include all the setup and
> >> teardown of a single device. On second thought, it doesn't really make
> >> sense to use a separate lock for that. May I have your opinion on this
> >> second version? (I've fixed the comments/BUG_ON that you pointed out.)
> > it seems it is the actually the first time, I see this one. Anyway, so
> > holding that lock is a bad idea. Fixing this the right way might be
> > tricky since the TTY layer is involved here and own the kobject. So I
> > would say we have to make sure that the RFCOMM TTY will hangup when
> > calling RELEASEDEV or otherwise fail.
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2008 at 7:14 AM, Marcel Holtmann <marcel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> The patch titled
> >> Bluetooth: fix oops in rfcomm tty code
> >> has been added to the -mm tree. Its filename is
> >> bluetooth-fix-oops-in-rfcomm-tty-code-v2.patch
> > just a quick note that I am not okay with this patch. Holding the lock
> > isn't the right solution since it would also block any other application
> > from creating new devices. We can't do this.
> We are not holding the lock across any ioctl/syscall boundary, which
> would be an error anyway.
> The lock now additionally protects the calls to:
> I don't think these functions block or do anything with the device
> apart from just registering/unregistering the files.
> Can you please explain in more detail what is wrong with the patch?
> Where are we preventing other applications from creating new devices?
> My intention was to prevent other applications from creating the
> _same_ devices while they are still in use, although attempting to
> register a new device (with an already-in-use ID) should simply fail,
> and not block.
I see an issue when a malicious application like the test program keeps
the TTY open. Then we would block any other TTY creation. Even if it is
a different TTY or process.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/