On Thu, Nov 29, 2001 at 07:18:35PM +0530, BALBIR SINGH wrote:
> The current code on my system 2.5.0 looks like
>
> if (!page) {
> MOD_DEC_USE_COUNT;
> return -ENOMEM;
> }
>
>
> I was wondering that if the open failed with something like this
>
> open(/dev/ttyS0, args) = -ENOMEM;
>
> why would somebody call close on /dev/ttyS0? If you call close on
> a descriptor that failed to open, it is *BAD* code.
Err,
close(-ENOMEM);
What's that going to close? Hint: you _can't_ close a descriptor that
failed to open, since you don't have a descriptor to close. You can
only try to close an error code, but that's not going to make it anywhere
near the kernel driver level.
> I am assuming
> that the tty layer that talks to the serial driver calls rs_close().
Correct.
> The same thing applies to the code below. I think that the open routine
> should instead set tty->driver_data to NULL upon failure.
Here's an example why that'd be real bad:
1. process A opens /dev/ttyS0 as a normal device. This initialises
tty->driver_data.
2. process B tries to open /dev/cua0
3. process B fails with -EBUSY since the normal device is open and active
(see block_til_ready)
4. since rs_open failed, we set tty->driver_data to be NULL (note that this
is the same tty device pointer as (1) above.
5. process A writes to /dev/ttyS0
6. rs_write does the following:
struct async_struct *info = (struct async_struct *)tty->driver_data;
7. Oops.
--
Russell King (rmk@arm.linux.org.uk) The developer of ARM Linux
http://www.arm.linux.org.uk/personal/aboutme.html
-
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 : Fri Nov 30 2001 - 21:00:34 EST