Re: [PATCH] uevent: send events in correct order according to seqnum

[avagin@xxxxxxxxx]

On 03/07/2012 01:03 AM, Kay Sievers wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 6, 2012 at 21:06, Andrew Vagin<avagin@xxxxxxxxxx>  wrote:
> > The queue handling in the udev daemon assumes that the events are
> > ordered.
> >
> > Before this patch uevent_seqnum is incremented under sequence_lock,
> > than an event is send uner uevent_sock_mutex. I want to say that code
> > contained a window between incrementing seqnum and sending an event.
> >
> > This patch locks uevent_sock_mutex before incrementing uevent_seqnum.
>
> I think we can remove the spin_lock(&sequence_lock); entirely now, right?

I thought about that too. sequence_lock is used when CONFIG_NET isn't 
defined. I've looked on this code one more time and we may leave only 
uevent_sock_mutex and use it even when CONFIG_NET isn't defined.
Thanks for the comment.

Greg, do you have other objections about this patch?

> Also the section with:
>    seq = ++uevent_seqnum;
> can just be:
>    add_uevent_var(env, "SEQNUM=%llu", (unsigned long long) ++uevent_seqnum);
> right?
>
> And the:
>    mutex_lock(&uevent_sock_mutex);
> can just move outside of the _NET ifdef and we always use the mutex
> instead of the spinlock?
>
> That could look much simpler than the current code, I think.
>
> Thanks,
> Kay

--
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/