Re: [RFC 01/15] drivers/base: add track framework
From: Andrzej Hajda
Date: Mon Dec 15 2014 - 09:00:21 EST
On 12/15/2014 01:55 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 13, 2014 at 12:12:19AM +0100, AH wrote:
>> Mark Brown wrote on 12.12.2014 17:36:
>>> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 04:48:19PM +0100, Andrzej Hajda wrote:
>>>> + kfree(ptask);
>>>> + if (empty)
>>>> + break;
>>>> + track_process_task(track, task);
>>> ...we then go and do some other stuff, including processing that task,
>>> without the lock or or any other means I can see of excluding other
>>> users before going round and removing the task. This seems to leave us
>>> vulnerable to double execution.
>> No, if you look at track_add_task function you will see that the queue is
>> processed only if it is initially empty, otherwise the task is only added to
>> the queue, so it will be processed after processing earlier tasks.
>> So the rule is that if someone add task to the queue it checks if the queue
>> is empty, in such case it process all tasks from the queue until
>> the queue becomes empty, even the tasks added by other processed.
>> This way all tasks are serialized.
> This is all pretty fiddly and seems fragile - if nothing else the code
> seems undercommented since the above is only going to be apparent with
> following through multiple functions and we're relying on both owner and
> list emptiness with more than one place where a task can get processed.
I have changed it already to test queue owner, this way it should
be more clear.
>>> I'm also unclear what is supposed to happen if adding a notification
>>> races with removing the thing being watched.
>> The sequence should be always as follows:
>> 1. create thing, then call track_up(thing).
>> 2. call track_down(thing) then remove thing.
>> If we put 1 into probe and 2 into remove callback of the driver it will be
>> safe - we are synchronised by device_lock. But if, for some reason, we want
>> to create object after probe we should do own synchronization or just put
>> device_lock around 1. The same applies if we want to remove
>> object earlier. This is the comment above about. I will expand it to more
>> verbose explanation.
> You can't rely on the device lock here since this isn't tied to kobjects
> or anything at all - it's a freestanding interface someone could pick up
> and use in another context. Besides, that isn't really my concern - my
> concern is what happens if something asks to wait for
But I do not rely here on device_lock, I just point out that 1 and 2
synchronized and as a common way is to put such things into probe
and remove, device_lock can do the synchronization for us in such case,
so no need for additional synchronization.
And to make everything clear, track_up will not be called by the driver
it shall be called by respective resource framework functions, for example
by regulator_register and regulator_unregister.
And regarding your initial/real concern, I guess you mean this one:
>> I'm also unclear what is supposed to happen if adding a notification
>> races with removing the thing being watched.
I guess you mean registering notifier and removal of thing it is
supposed to watch.
As all track tasks are serialized these two will be serialized also so
we can have
only two scenarios:
a) register notifier
- thing is up, so notifier will be immediately called with info that
the thing is up
b) remove thing
- thing will be down, so notifier will be called with info that the
thing will be removed
a) remove thing
- notifier is not yet registered, so callback will not be called,
b) register notifier
- thing is already removed, so callback will not be called.
I hope this is what you were asking for.
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/