Re: [PATCH v2] staging: tidspbridge: protect dmm_map properly

[Felipe Contreras]

On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:46 AM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 29, 2010 at 11:39 AM, Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:37 PM, Ohad Ben-Cohen <ohad@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:24 PM, Felipe Contreras
>>> <felipe.contreras@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> user-space crashed, not kernel-space; the code would continue to run
>>>> and eventually release the lock.
>>>
>>> So you'll have to be more specific about the scenario you are describing.
>>>
>>> If there's a user thread that is still running the proc_*_dma()
>>> function, and we agree that this thread keeps running until completion
>>> and then returns to user space, what's the problem ?
>>
>> The problem is if the user-space process crashes exactly in the middle
>> of it, *before* completing. With locks there's no problem, as
>> proc_un_map() would wait for the lock in my patch. In your patch it
>> would not wait, just return -EBUSY.
>
> We have two threads.
>
> One called proc_un_map(), and one called proc_begin_dma().
>
> The first crashed, but the second didn't. it still holds the bridge
> device open. When it will exit, and release the device, then
> drv_remove_all_resources() will be called, and all the map_obj's will
> be cleaned.

I'm not familiar how crashes are handled; if you say as long as one
task is still running the device release is not called, then I guess
there's no issue.

-- 
Felipe Contreras
--
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/