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

[Ohad Ben-Cohen]

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.

>
>> If that user thread will crash, drv_remove_all_resources() will clean
>> up all map_obj's.
>
> Not if a proc_*_dma() is still running.

It will be called after it will return, and its thread will exit (or crash).
--
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/