There are many WARNINGs like the following reported nowadays:
WARNING: at drivers/tty/tty_io.c:1331 tty_open+0x2a2/0x49a()
Hardware name: Latitude E6500
Modules linked in:
Pid: 1207, comm: plymouthd Not tainted 2.6.37-rc3-mmotm1123 #3
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff8103b189>] warn_slowpath_common+0x80/0x98
[<ffffffff8103b1b6>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x17
[<ffffffff8128a3ab>] tty_open+0x2a2/0x49a
[<ffffffff810fd53f>] chrdev_open+0x11d/0x146
...
This means tty_reopen is called without TTY_LDISC set. For further
considerations, note tty_lock is held in tty_open. TTY_LDISC is cleared in:
1) __tty_hangup from tty_ldisc_hangup to tty_ldisc_enable. During this
section tty_lock is held. However tty_lock is temporarily dropped in
the middle of the function by tty_ldisc_hangup.
2) tty_release via tty_ldisc_release till the end of tty existence. If
tty->count <= 1, tty_lock is taken, TTY_CLOSING bit set and then
tty_ldisc_release called. tty_reopen checks TTY_CLOSING before checking
TTY_LDISC.
3) tty_set_ldisc from tty_ldisc_halt to tty_ldisc_enable. We:
* take tty_lock, set TTY_LDISC_CHANGING, put tty_lock
* call tty_ldisc_halt (clear TTY_LDISC), tty_lock is _not_ held
* do some other work
* take tty_lock, call tty_ldisc_enable (set TTY_LDISC), put
tty_lock
I cannot see how 2) can be a problem, as there I see no race. OTOH, 1)
and 3) can happen without problems. This patch the case 3) by checking
TTY_LDISC_CHANGING along with TTY_CLOSING in tty_reopen. 1) will be
fixed in the following patch.
Nicely reproducible with two processes:
while (1) {
fd = open("/dev/ttyS1", O_RDWR);
if (fd < 0) {
warn("open");
continue;
}
close(fd);
}
--------
while (1) {
fd = open("/dev/ttyS1", O_RDWR);
ld1 = 0; ld2 = 2;
while (1) {
ioctl(fd, TIOCSETD, &ld1);
ioctl(fd, TIOCSETD, &ld2);
}
close(fd);
}
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@suse.cz>
Reported-by: <Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu>
Cc: Kyle McMartin <kyle@mcmartin.ca>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: stable <stable@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
e2efafbf13