| Message ID | 20201228071550.15745-1-gao.yanB@h3c.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Delegated to: | Netdev Maintainers |
| Headers | show |
| Series | net: remove disc_data_lock in ppp line discipline | expand |
| Context | Check | Description |
|---|---|---|
| netdev/cover_letter | success | Link |
| netdev/fixes_present | success | Link |
| netdev/patch_count | success | Link |
| netdev/tree_selection | success | Guessed tree name to be net-next |
| netdev/subject_prefix | warning | Target tree name not specified in the subject |
| netdev/cc_maintainers | success | CCed 5 of 5 maintainers |
| netdev/source_inline | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/verify_signedoff | success | Link |
| netdev/module_param | success | Was 0 now: 0 |
| netdev/build_32bit | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/kdoc | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/verify_fixes | success | Link |
| netdev/checkpatch | success | total: 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 checks, 62 lines checked |
| netdev/build_allmodconfig_warn | success | Errors and warnings before: 0 this patch: 0 |
| netdev/header_inline | success | Link |
| netdev/stable | success | Stable not CCed |
> In tty layer, it use tty->ldisc_sem to proect tty_ldisc_ops. > So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also protect tty->disc_data; It might help by CC'ing TTY people, so that we could get this reviewed by people who are familiar with TTY code. Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> (supporter:TTY LAYER) Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@kernel.org> (supporter:TTY LAYER) Thanks! > For examlpe, > When cpu A is running ppp_synctty_ioctl that hold the tty->ldisc_sem, > at the same time if cpu B calls ppp_synctty_close, it will wait until > cpu A release tty->ldisc_sem. So I think it is unnecessary to have the > disc_data_lock; > > cpu A cpu B > tty_ioctl tty_reopen > ->hold tty->ldisc_sem ->hold tty->ldisc_sem(write), failed > ->ld->ops->ioctl ->wait... > ->release tty->ldisc_sem ->wait...OK,hold tty->ldisc_sem > ->tty_ldisc_reinit > ->tty_ldisc_close > ->ld->ops->close IMHO an example might not be necessary. Examples are useful to show incorrectness. But we cannot show correctness by examples because examples are not exhaustive. BTW, there're some typos: "proect" -> "protect" "examlpe" -> "example" "that hold ..." -> "that holds ..." "cpu A release ..." -> "cpu A releases ..." > * FIXME: this is no longer true. The _close path for the ldisc is > * now guaranteed to be sane. > */ > * > * FIXME: Fixed in tty_io nowadays. > */ Since you are removing "disc_data_lock", please update (or remove) these two comments. Thanks!
diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c index 29a0917a8..20b50facd 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c +++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c @@ -127,17 +127,13 @@ static const struct ppp_channel_ops async_ops = { * FIXME: this is no longer true. The _close path for the ldisc is * now guaranteed to be sane. */ -static DEFINE_RWLOCK(disc_data_lock); static struct asyncppp *ap_get(struct tty_struct *tty) { - struct asyncppp *ap; + struct asyncppp *ap = tty->disc_data; - read_lock(&disc_data_lock); - ap = tty->disc_data; if (ap != NULL) refcount_inc(&ap->refcnt); - read_unlock(&disc_data_lock); return ap; } @@ -214,12 +210,9 @@ ppp_asynctty_open(struct tty_struct *tty) static void ppp_asynctty_close(struct tty_struct *tty) { - struct asyncppp *ap; + struct asyncppp *ap = tty->disc_data; - write_lock_irq(&disc_data_lock); - ap = tty->disc_data; tty->disc_data = NULL; - write_unlock_irq(&disc_data_lock); if (!ap) return; diff --git a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c index 0f338752c..53fb68e29 100644 --- a/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c +++ b/drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c @@ -129,17 +129,12 @@ ppp_print_buffer (const char *name, const __u8 *buf, int count) * * FIXME: Fixed in tty_io nowadays. */ -static DEFINE_RWLOCK(disc_data_lock); - static struct syncppp *sp_get(struct tty_struct *tty) { - struct syncppp *ap; + struct syncppp *ap = tty->disc_data; - read_lock(&disc_data_lock); - ap = tty->disc_data; if (ap != NULL) refcount_inc(&ap->refcnt); - read_unlock(&disc_data_lock); return ap; } @@ -213,12 +208,9 @@ ppp_sync_open(struct tty_struct *tty) static void ppp_sync_close(struct tty_struct *tty) { - struct syncppp *ap; + struct syncppp *ap = tty->disc_data; - write_lock_irq(&disc_data_lock); - ap = tty->disc_data; tty->disc_data = NULL; - write_unlock_irq(&disc_data_lock); if (!ap) return;
In tty layer, it use tty->ldisc_sem to proect tty_ldisc_ops. So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also protect tty->disc_data; For examlpe, When cpu A is running ppp_synctty_ioctl that hold the tty->ldisc_sem, at the same time if cpu B calls ppp_synctty_close, it will wait until cpu A release tty->ldisc_sem. So I think it is unnecessary to have the disc_data_lock; cpu A cpu B tty_ioctl tty_reopen ->hold tty->ldisc_sem ->hold tty->ldisc_sem(write), failed ->ld->ops->ioctl ->wait... ->release tty->ldisc_sem ->wait...OK,hold tty->ldisc_sem ->tty_ldisc_reinit ->tty_ldisc_close ->ld->ops->close Signed-off-by: Gao Yan <gao.yanB@h3c.com> --- drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c | 11 ++--------- drivers/net/ppp/ppp_synctty.c | 12 ++---------- 2 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)