Am Freitag, 22. Dezember 2006 20:08 schrieb J:
> > This problem will need some deeper surgery probably
> > involving
> > removal of the refcounting.
>
> Refcounting may be OK if used consistently.
> It is not OK when some pointers are ref-counted,
> but other (in serial_table) are not (like it is
> in the current version).
No, this is a fundamental problem. You don't refcount
a pointer, you refcount a data structure. But this is
insufficient. We need to make sure the pointer points to valid
memory.
The problem with the current scheme is that serial_table
needs a lock. It needs to be taken in four places
- disconnect()
- open()
- probe()
- read_proc()
Refcounting solves only the race between disconnect() and close()
There's little use in a second locking mechanism if you use it
only in a minority of occasions.
Refcounting is a great idea if the number of references follows
a clear up -> maximum -> down -> free scheme, like for
skbs, etc..
>
> As for the deeper surgery, what do you think about my
> earlier suggestion to start by rewriting
> usb_serial_probe
> to fully initialize usb_serial before it is added to
> serial_table?
Good suggestion. However, if done right, we'd go for a spin lock.
Regards
Oliver
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
