On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 04:13:06PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:06:41AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> >
> > > hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to
> > > fail
> > > the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:06:41AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> > hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
> > the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
> > fail the removal then your
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:06:41AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
fail the removal then your patch is
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 04:13:06PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 11:06:41AM -0500, Alan Stern wrote:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to
fail
the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:34:06PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:38:00AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 05:43 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
> > > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > Alan Stern has
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 17:57 schrieb Alan Stern:
> I was referring to sysfs_remove_file(), not sysfs_open_file() -- I agree
> that getting rid of the check_perm() routine is good. But this isn't:
>
> > void sysfs_remove_file(struct kobject * kobj, const struct attribute *
> > attr)
> >
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Also, Oliver, it looks like the latest version of your patch makes an
> > unnecessary change to sysfs_remove_file().
>
> Code like:
>
> int d(int a, int b)
> {
> return a + b;
> }
>
> int c(int a, int b)
> {
> return d(a, b);
> }
>
>
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 17:06 schrieb Alan Stern:
> On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
>
> > hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
> > the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
> > fail the removal then your patch is
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
> hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
> the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
> fail the removal then your patch is the way to go.
>
> Greg?
Oliver is right that we cannot allow
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 14:04 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
> > > Hi Oliver,
> > >
> > > Thanks for the explaining the patch but some description about the race
> > > would also help here. At the least the callpath to the race would be
> > > useful.
> > >
> > >
> > > Thanks
> > > Maneesh
> >
> > We
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:38:00AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 05:43 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
> > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could
> > > be
> >
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:38:00AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 05:43 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Hi,
Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could
be
called after
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 14:04 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
Hi Oliver,
Thanks for the explaining the patch but some description about the race
would also help here. At the least the callpath to the race would be
useful.
Thanks
Maneesh
We have code like this:
static
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
fail the removal then your patch is the way to go.
Greg?
Oliver is right that we cannot allow
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 17:06 schrieb Alan Stern:
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Maneesh Soni wrote:
hmm, I guess Greg has to say the final word. The question is either to fail
the IO (-ENODEV) or fail the file removal (-EBUSY). If we are not going to
fail the removal then your patch is the way
On Mon, 4 Dec 2006, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Also, Oliver, it looks like the latest version of your patch makes an
unnecessary change to sysfs_remove_file().
Code like:
int d(int a, int b)
{
return a + b;
}
int c(int a, int b)
{
return d(a, b);
}
is a detrimental to
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 17:57 schrieb Alan Stern:
I was referring to sysfs_remove_file(), not sysfs_open_file() -- I agree
that getting rid of the check_perm() routine is good. But this isn't:
void sysfs_remove_file(struct kobject * kobj, const struct attribute *
attr)
{
-
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 06:34:06PM +0530, Maneesh Soni wrote:
On Mon, Dec 04, 2006 at 07:38:00AM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 05:43 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Hi,
Alan Stern has discovered a race
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 05:43 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
> On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could be
> > called after sysfs_remove_file() has run. The attached patch should fix it.
> >
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could be
> called after sysfs_remove_file() has run. The attached patch should fix it.
>
> It introduces a new data structure acting as a collection of all
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Hi,
Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could be
called after sysfs_remove_file() has run. The attached patch should fix it.
It introduces a new data structure acting as a collection of all
Am Montag, 4. Dezember 2006 05:43 schrieb Maneesh Soni:
On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 11:43:06PM +0100, Oliver Neukum wrote:
Hi,
Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could be
called after sysfs_remove_file() has run. The attached patch should fix it.
It
Hi,
Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could be
called after sysfs_remove_file() has run. The attached patch should fix it.
It introduces a new data structure acting as a collection of all sysfs_buffers
associated with an attribute. Upon removal of an attribute
Hi,
Alan Stern has discovered a race in sysfs, whereby driver callbacks could be
called after sysfs_remove_file() has run. The attached patch should fix it.
It introduces a new data structure acting as a collection of all sysfs_buffers
associated with an attribute. Upon removal of an attribute
24 matches
Mail list logo
