Return-Path: <cyrus@holtmann.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Bluetooth: fix oops in rfcomm tty code (v2)
From: Marcel Holtmann <marcel@holtmann.org>
To: Vegard Nossum <vegard.nossum@gmail.com>
Cc: Maxim Krasnyansky <maxk@qualcomm.com>,
	Dave Young <hidave.darkstar@gmail.com>,
	Soeren Sonnenburg <kernel@nn7.de>,
	David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-bluetooth@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
In-Reply-To: <20080719211227.GA14173@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20080719211227.GA14173@localhost.localdomain>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 23:38:20 +0200
Message-Id: <1216503500.8411.110.camel@violet.holtmann.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-bluetooth-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-bluetooth.vger.kernel.org>

Hi Vegard,

> This is a resend of a patch I sent earlier. It fixes a reproducible
> oops (see http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/7/13/89 for test case), and I'd
> be very happy for some feedback from Bluetooth people. Can this be
> included for testing somewhere? I don't have any bluetooth devices
> myself, so all my testing is limited to creating/releasing devices
> with ioctl (I'm not sure that's good enough).
> 
> Dave: I have extended the rfcomm_dev_lock to include all the setup and
> teardown of a single device. On second thought, it doesn't really make
> sense to use a separate lock for that. May I have your opinion on this
> second version? (I've fixed the comments/BUG_ON that you pointed out.)

it seems it is the actually the first time, I see this one. Anyway, so
holding that lock is a bad idea. Fixing this the right way might be
tricky since the TTY layer is involved here and own the kobject. So I
would say we have to make sure that the RFCOMM TTY will hangup when
calling RELEASEDEV or otherwise fail.

Regards

Marcel