At Wed, 30 Jan 2013 18:25:20 +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Takashi Iwai <ti...@suse.de> wrote: > >> The above usermodehelper_read_lock thing may be a functional change, > >> and looks not what you claimed in commit log, :-). The lock is currently > >> held in > >> direct loading case, but your patch change the rule. Without holding the > >> lock, > >> request_firmware() may touch filesystem / storage too early during > >> kernel boot or system resume in direct loading case. > > > > Does it really happen in a real scenario? > > Some crazy drivers might call request_firmware inside resume callback, > with usermodehelper_read_lock, we can find the mistake easily and log it.
But it's supposed to be cached, no? > > If so, using usermode helper lock for that purpose sounds like an > > abuse to be fixed differently or replaced with a better one. > > Might be, but looks not good to introduce this change in a code > refactoring patch. Or you can do it in another patch for discussion > if you have better way to handle the situation. Yes, I already modified the code again. Will resubmit them soon. Takashi -- 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/
