Hi Greg KH:
On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 09:18:48 +0100, Greg KH wrote:
>On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 11:37:18AM +0800, Gao Yan wrote:
>> In tty layer, it provides tty->ldisc_sem to protect all tty_ldisc_ops
>> including ppp_sync_ldisc. So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also protect
>> tty->disc_data, and the
On Fri, 1 Jan 2021 11:37:18 +0800 Gao Yan wrote:
> In tty layer, it provides tty->ldisc_sem to protect all tty_ldisc_ops
> including ppp_sync_ldisc. So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also
> protect tty->disc_data, and the disc_data_lock is not necessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Yan
Please make sure
Hi Greg KH:
We have a potential race on dereferencing tty->disc_data, so we should use some
locks to avoid the competition.
In the current version, it defines disc_data_lock to protect the race of
ppp_asynctty_receive and ppp_asynctty_close.
However, I think when cpu A is running
On Fri, Jan 01, 2021 at 11:37:18AM +0800, Gao Yan wrote:
> In tty layer, it provides tty->ldisc_sem to protect all tty_ldisc_ops
> including ppp_sync_ldisc. So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also
> protect tty->disc_data, and the disc_data_lock is not necessary.
>
> Signed-off-by: Gao Yan
> ---
>
In tty layer, it provides tty->ldisc_sem to protect all tty_ldisc_ops
including ppp_sync_ldisc. So I think tty->ldisc_sem can also
protect tty->disc_data, and the disc_data_lock is not necessary.
Signed-off-by: Gao Yan
---
drivers/net/ppp/ppp_async.c | 11 ++-
5 matches
Mail list logo