Re: [PATCH] Change the spin_lock/unlock_irq interface in proc_alloc_inum() function

[majun (F)]

å 2016/3/2 11:09, Al Viro åé:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 10:47:59AM +0800, MaJun wrote:
>> From: Ma Jun <majun258@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> The spin_lock/unlock_irq interface is not safe when this function is called
>> at some case which need irq disabled.
> 
>> For example:
>> 	spin_lock_irqsave()
>> 	|
>> 	request_irq() --> proc_alloc_inum()
>> 	|
>> 	spin_unlock_irqrestore()
> 
> Do you even read your own patch?
> 
>>  	if (!ida_pre_get(&proc_inum_ida, GFP_KERNEL))
> 					 ^^^^^^^^^^
> 					 This.
> 
> It can block.  You *can't* call that under spin_lock_irqsave().  At all.
> You also can't do request_irq() under a spinlock, no matter whether you
> disable irqs or not - it also blocks.  So does proc_mkdir(), for that
> matter, and not only in proc_alloc_inum().
> 
> NAKed.  Don't do it.  request_irq() is not to be called under spinlocks,
> with or without irqs disabled.
> 

Sorry,I made a wrong example for this problem.
I want to say this interface may change the irq status after this function
be called.

Thanks!
MaJun

> .
>