On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 11:17 AM, Linus Torvalds <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Ming Lei <ming....@canonical.com> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 9, 2015 at 1:29 AM, Linus Torvalds >> <torva...@linux-foundation.org> wrote: >>> Also, it looks like you need to hold the "fw_lock" to even look at >>> that pointer, since the buffer can get reallocated etc. >> >> Yes, the above code with holding 'fw_lock' is right fix for the issue since >> sysfs read can happen anytime, and there is one race between firmware >> request abort and reading uevent of sysfs. > > So if fw_priv->buf is NULL, what should we do? > > Should we skip the TIMEOUT= and ASYNC= fields too?
When the request is aborted, the firmware device will be removed, so it is OK to skip the two fields. > > Something like the attached, perhaps? Looks it is fine. > > Shuah, how reproducible is this? Does this (completely untested) patch > make any difference? > > Linus -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
