lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH V2] hid: hid-core: Fix a sleep-in-atomic-context bug in __hid_request()
From
Date


On 2018/9/30 3:20, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Sep 2018, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>
>>>> picolcd_send_and_wait (acquire a spinlock)
>>>> hid_hw_request
>>>> __hid_request
>>>> hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
>>>>
>>>> picolcd_reset (acquire a spinlock)
>>>> hid_hw_request
>>>> __hid_request
>>>> hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
>>>>
>>>> lg4ff_play (acquire a spinlock)
>>>> hid_hw_request
>>>> __hid_request
>>>> hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
>>>>
>>>> lg4ff_set_autocenter_ffex (acquire a spinlock)
>>>> hid_hw_request
>>>> __hid_request
>>>> hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
>>> Hm, so it's always drivers calling out into core in atomic context. So
>>> either we take this, and put our bets on being able to allocate the buffer
>>> without sleeping,
>> In my opinion, I prefer this way.
> Why? Forcing all the report buffer to be limited to be non-sleeping
> allocations just because of two drivers, looks like an overkill, and
> actually calls for more issues (as GFP_ATOMIC is of course in principle
> less likely to succeed).
>

Okay, I thought that using GFP_ATOMIC is the simplest way to fix these bugs.
But I check the Linux kernel code again, and find that hid_hw_request()
are called at many places.
So changing this function may affect many drivers.
I agree to only change the two drivers, and explicitly anotate
__hid_request() with might_sleep().


Best wishes,
Jia-Ju Bai

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-04 05:15    [W:0.609 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site