On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 07:03:26PM +0200, Guido Kiener wrote:
> - Add 'struct usbtmc_file_data' for each file handle to cache last
> srq_byte (=Status Byte with SRQ) received by usbtmc_interrupt(..)
>
> - usbtmc488_ioctl_read_stb returns cached srq_byte when available for
> each file handle to avoid race conditions of concurrent applications.
>
> - SRQ now sets EPOLLPRI instead of EPOLLIN
>
> - Caches other values TermChar, TermCharEnabled, auto_abort in
> 'struct usbtmc_file_data' will not be changed by sysfs device
> attributes during an open file session.
> Future ioctl functions can change these values.
>
> - use consistent error return value ETIMEOUT instead of ETIME
>
> Tested-by: Dave Penkler <[email protected]>
> Reviewed-by: Steve Bayless <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Guido Kiener <[email protected]>
> ---
> drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c | 176 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 136 insertions(+), 40 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> index 529295a17579..5754354429d8 100644
> --- a/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> +++ b/drivers/usb/class/usbtmc.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@ struct usbtmc_device_data {
> const struct usb_device_id *id;
> struct usb_device *usb_dev;
> struct usb_interface *intf;
> + struct list_head file_list;
>
> unsigned int bulk_in;
> unsigned int bulk_out;
> @@ -87,12 +88,12 @@ struct usbtmc_device_data {
> int iin_interval;
> struct urb *iin_urb;
> u16 iin_wMaxPacketSize;
> - atomic_t srq_asserted;
>
> /* coalesced usb488_caps from usbtmc_dev_capabilities */
> __u8 usb488_caps;
>
> /* attributes from the USB TMC spec for this device */
> + /* They are used as default values for file_data */
> u8 TermChar;
> bool TermCharEnabled;
> bool auto_abort;
> @@ -104,9 +105,26 @@ struct usbtmc_device_data {
> struct mutex io_mutex; /* only one i/o function running at a time */
> wait_queue_head_t waitq;
> struct fasync_struct *fasync;
> + spinlock_t dev_lock; /* lock for file_list */
> };
> #define to_usbtmc_data(d) container_of(d, struct usbtmc_device_data, kref)
>
> +/*
> + * This structure holds private data for each USBTMC file handle.
> + */
> +struct usbtmc_file_data {
> + struct usbtmc_device_data *data;
> + struct list_head file_elem;
> +
> + u8 srq_byte;
> + atomic_t srq_asserted;
> +
> + /* These values are initialized with default values from device_data */
> + u8 TermChar;
> + bool TermCharEnabled;
I don't remember, does TermChar and TermCharEnabled come from a
specification somewhere? Is that why they are in InterCaps format?
And why duplicate these fields as they are already in the
device-specific data structure?
> + bool auto_abort;
> +};
> +
> /* Forward declarations */
> static struct usb_driver usbtmc_driver;
>
> @@ -114,6 +132,7 @@ static void usbtmc_delete(struct kref *kref)
> {
> struct usbtmc_device_data *data = to_usbtmc_data(kref);
>
> + pr_debug("%s - called\n", __func__);
> usb_put_dev(data->usb_dev);
> kfree(data);
> }
> @@ -122,7 +141,7 @@ static int usbtmc_open(struct inode *inode, struct file
> *filp)
> {
> struct usb_interface *intf;
> struct usbtmc_device_data *data;
> - int retval = 0;
> + struct usbtmc_file_data *file_data;
>
> intf = usb_find_interface(&usbtmc_driver, iminor(inode));
> if (!intf) {
> @@ -130,21 +149,54 @@ static int usbtmc_open(struct inode *inode, struct file
> *filp)
> return -ENODEV;
> }
>
> + file_data = kzalloc(sizeof(*file_data), GFP_KERNEL);
> + if (!file_data)
> + return -ENOMEM;
> +
> + pr_debug("%s - called\n", __func__);
Please do not add "tracing" functions like this. The kernel has a
wonderful built-in function tracing functionality, don't try to write
your own. These lines should just be removed.
> +
> data = usb_get_intfdata(intf);
> /* Protect reference to data from file structure until release */
> kref_get(&data->kref);
>
> + mutex_lock(&data->io_mutex);
> + file_data->data = data;
> +
> + /* copy default values from device settings */
> + file_data->TermChar = data->TermChar;
> + file_data->TermCharEnabled = data->TermCharEnabled;
> + file_data->auto_abort = data->auto_abort;
> +
> + INIT_LIST_HEAD(&file_data->file_elem);
> + spin_lock_irq(&data->dev_lock);
> + list_add_tail(&file_data->file_elem, &data->file_list);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&data->dev_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&data->io_mutex);
> +
> /* Store pointer in file structure's private data field */
> - filp->private_data = data;
> + filp->private_data = file_data;
>
> - return retval;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int usbtmc_release(struct inode *inode, struct file *file)
> {
> - struct usbtmc_device_data *data = file->private_data;
> + struct usbtmc_file_data *file_data = file->private_data;
>
> - kref_put(&data->kref, usbtmc_delete);
> + pr_debug("%s - called\n", __func__);
Again, these all need to be dropped.
> +
> + /* prevent IO _AND_ usbtmc_interrupt */
> + mutex_lock(&file_data->data->io_mutex);
> + spin_lock_irq(&file_data->data->dev_lock);
> +
> + list_del(&file_data->file_elem);
> +
> + spin_unlock_irq(&file_data->data->dev_lock);
> + mutex_unlock(&file_data->data->io_mutex);
You protect the list, but what about removing the data itself?
> +
> + kref_put(&file_data->data->kref, usbtmc_delete);
What protects this from being called at the same time a kref_get is
being called?
Yeah, it previously probably already had this race, sorry I never
noticed that.
> + file_data->data = NULL;
> + kfree(file_data);
> return 0;
> }
>
> @@ -369,10 +421,12 @@ static int usbtmc_ioctl_abort_bulk_out(struct
> usbtmc_device_data *data)
> return rv;
> }
>
> -static int usbtmc488_ioctl_read_stb(struct usbtmc_device_data *data,
> +static int usbtmc488_ioctl_read_stb(struct usbtmc_file_data *file_data,
> void __user *arg)
> {
> + struct usbtmc_device_data *data = file_data->data;
> struct device *dev = &data->intf->dev;
> + int srq_asserted = 0;
> u8 *buffer;
> u8 tag;
> __u8 stb;
> @@ -381,15 +435,27 @@ static int usbtmc488_ioctl_read_stb(struct
> usbtmc_device_data *data,
> dev_dbg(dev, "Enter ioctl_read_stb iin_ep_present: %d\n",
> data->iin_ep_present);
>
> + spin_lock_irq(&data->dev_lock);
> + srq_asserted = atomic_xchg(&file_data->srq_asserted, srq_asserted);
That really frightens me. Why are you messing with atomic values here?
What is it supposed to be "protecting" or "doing"?
thanks,
greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
