On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 04:58:31PM +0530, Amit Shah wrote:
> The in-vq operations were protected by a lock, but the out-vq
> operations were not. This caused panics / errors as described in
> patch 2. Fix that.
BTW, this looks suspicious. Why no lock here?
static void remove_controlq_data(struct ports_device *portdev)
{
struct port_buffer *buf;
unsigned int len;
if (!use_multiport(portdev))
return;
while ((buf = virtqueue_get_buf(portdev->c_ivq, &len)))
free_buf(buf, true);
while ((buf = virtqueue_detach_unused_buf(portdev->c_ivq)))
free_buf(buf, true);
}
> The first patch renames the existing cvq_lock to c_ivq_lock to match
> c_ivq. The second patch introduces the c_ovq_lock for the c_ovq.
>
> Please apply. I also believe this is a candidate for stable.
>
>
> Amit Shah (2):
> virtio: console: rename cvq_lock to c_ivq_lock
> virtio: console: add locking around c_ovq operations
>
> drivers/char/virtio_console.c | 22 ++++++++++++++--------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> --
> 1.8.1.4
>
> _______________________________________________
> Virtualization mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
--
Asias
_______________________________________________
Virtualization mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
