Re: [PATCH] tty: Add missing lock in n_tty_write()

[Joerg Roedel]

Hi Peter,

thanks for you explanations. They helped me to better understand what is
happening now.

On Wed, May 15, 2013 at 07:10:43PM -0400, Peter Hurley wrote:
> On 05/15/2013 03:48 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:

> Agreed. Those functions look written for single-producer/single-consumer
> i/o model. (That's why I asked about CONFIG_CONSOLE_POLL=y as well because
> that doesn't look thread-safe either).

Ok, I checked that. CONFIG_CONSOLE_POLL is on in that kernel.

> Just to be clear here: there's a difference between a console driver
> and a tty driver.
> 
> The console driver's write() method is serialized with the global
> console_lock() so parallel console writes are not possible.
> 
> No such guarantee exists for the tty driver write() method, although it
> probably wouldn't be difficult to provide that guarantee (since the
> line discipline write() is already serialized by tty->atomic_write_lock).

Okay, so it is safe to say that currently the drivers write() (and
put_chars()) functions need to expect to be called concurrently and
therefore they have to serialize themselves when they need it, right?


	Joerg


--
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/