When releasing the master pty, the slave pty also needs to be locked
to prevent concurrent tty count changes for the slave pty and to
ensure that only one parallel master and slave release observe the
final close, and proceed to destruct the pty pair. Conversely, when
releasing the slave pty, locking the master pty is not necessary
(since the master's state can be inferred by the slave tty count).
Introduce tty_lock_slave()/tty_unlock_slave() which acquires/releases
the tty lock of the slave pty. Remove tty_lock_pair()/tty_unlock_pair().
Dropping the tty_lock is no longer required to re-establish a stable
lock order.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
The local o_tty variable in tty_release() is now accessed only
when closing the pty master.
Set o_tty to slave pty when closing pty master, otherwise NULL;
use o_tty != NULL as replacement for pty_master.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
When the slave side closes and its tty count is 0, the pty
pair can be destroyed; the master side must have already
closed for the slave side tty count to be 0. Thus, only the
pty master close must check if the slave side has closed by
checking the slave tty count.
Remove the pre-computed closing flags and check the actual count(s).
Regular ttys are unaffected by this change.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Holding the tty_lock() is necessary to prevent concurrent changes
to the tty count that may cause it to differ from the open file
list count. The tty_lock() is already held at all call sites.
NB: Note that the check for the pty master tty count is safe because
the slave's tty_lock() is held while decrementing the pty master
tty count.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Releasing the tty locks while waiting for the tty wait queues to
be empty is no longer necessary nor desirable. Prior to
"tty: Don't take tty_mutex for tty count changes", dropping the
tty locks was necessary to reestablish the correct lock order between
tty_mutex and the tty locks. Dropping the global tty_mutex was necessary;
otherwise new ttys could not have been opened while waiting.
However, without needing the global tty_mutex held, the tty locks for
the releasing tty can now be held through the sleep. The sanity check
is for abnormal conditions caused by kernel bugs, not for recoverable
errors caused by misbehaving userspace; dropping the tty locks only
allows the tty state to get more sideways.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Holding tty_mutex is no longer required to serialize changes to
the tty_count or to prevent concurrent opens of closing ttys;
tty_lock() is sufficient.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Now that re-open is not permitted for a legacy BSD pty master,
using TTY_CLOSING to indicate when a tty can be torn-down is
no longer necessary.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Holding tty_mutex for a tty re-open is no longer necessary since
"tty: Clarify re-open behavior of master ptys". Because the
slave tty count is no longer accessed by tty_reopen(), holding
tty_mutex to prevent concurrent final tty_release() of the slave
pty is not required.
As with "tty: Re-open /dev/tty without tty_mutex", holding a
tty kref until the tty_lock is acquired is sufficient to ensure
the tty has not been freed, which, in turn, is sufficient to
ensure the tty_lock can be safely acquired and the tty count
can be safely retrieved. A non-zero tty count with the tty lock
held guarantees that release_tty() has not run and cannot
run concurrently with tty_reopen().
Change tty_driver_lookup_tty() to acquire the tty kref, which
allows the tty_mutex to be dropped before acquiring the tty lock.
Dropping the tty_mutex before attempting the tty_lock allows
other ttys to be opened and released, without needing this
tty_reopen() to complete.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Opening /dev/tty (ie., the controlling tty for the current task)
is always a re-open of the underlying tty. Because holding the
tty_lock is sufficient for safely re-opening a tty, and because
having a tty kref is sufficient for safely acquiring the tty_lock [1],
tty_open_current_tty() does not require holding tty_mutex.
Repurpose tty_open_current_tty() to perform the re-open itself and
refactor tty_open().
[1] Analysis of safely re-opening the current tty w/o tty_mutex
get_current_tty() gets a tty kref from the already kref'ed tty value of
current->signal->tty while holding the sighand lock for the current
task. This guarantees that the tty pointer returned from
get_current_tty() points to a tty which remains referenceable
while holding the kref.
Although release_tty() may run concurrently, and thus the driver
reference may be removed, release_one_tty() cannot have run, and
won't while holding the tty kref.
This, in turn, guarantees the tty_lock() can safely be acquired
(since tty->magic and tty->legacy_mutex are still a valid dereferences).
The tty_lock() also gets a tty kref to prevent the tty_unlock() from
dereferencing a released tty. Thus, the kref returned from
get_current_tty() can be released.
Lastly, the first operation of tty_reopen() is to check the tty count.
If non-zero, this ensures release_tty() is not running concurrently,
and the driver references have not been removed.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Opening the slave BSD pty first already returns -EIO from the slave
pty_open(), which in turn causes the newly installed tty pair to be
released before returning from tty_open(). However, this can also
cause a parallel master BSD pty open to fail because the pty pair
destruction may already been taking place in tty_release().
Failing at driver->install() if the slave pty is opened first ensures
that a pty master open cannot fail, because the driver tables will
not have been updated so tty_driver_lookup_tty() won't find the
master pty (and attempt to "re-open" it).
In turn, this guarantees that any tty with a tty->count == 0 is
in final close (rather than never opened).
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Although perhaps not obvious, the TTY_CLOSING bit is set when the
tty count has been decremented to 0 (which occurs while holding
tty_lock). The only other case when tty count is 0 during a re-open
is when a legacy BSD pty master has been opened in parallel but
after the pty slave, which is unsupported and returns an error.
Thus !tty->count contains the complete set of degenerate conditions
under which a tty open fails.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Re-opening master ptys is not allowed. Once opened and for the remaining
lifetime of the master pty, its tty count is 1. If its tty count has
dropped to 0, then the master pty was closed and TTY_CLOSING was set,
and destruction may begin imminently.
Besides the normal case of a legacy BSD pty master being re-opened
(which always returns -EIO), this code is only reachable in 2 degenerate
cases:
1. The pty master is the controlling terminal (this is possible through
the TIOCSCTTY ioctl). pty masters are not designed to be controlling
terminals and it's an oversight that tiocsctty() ever let that happen.
The attempted open of /dev/tty will always fail. No known program does
this.
2. The legacy BSD pty slave was opened first. The slave open will fail
in pty_open() and tty_release() will commence. But before tty_release()
claims the tty_mutex, there is a very small window where a parallel
master open might succeed. In a test of racing legacy BSD slave and
master parallel opens, where:
slave open attempts: 10000 success:4527 failure:5473
master open attempts: 11728 success:5789 failure:5939
only 8 master open attempts would have succeeded reaching this code and
successfully opened the master pty. This case is not possible with
SysV ptys.
Always return -EIO if a master pty is re-opened or the slave is opened
first and the master opened in parallel (for legacy BSD ptys).
Furthermore, now that changing the slave's count is not required,
the tty_lock is sufficient for preventing concurrent changes to the
tty being re-opened (or failing re-opening).
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Now that tty_ldisc_hangup() does not drop the tty lock, it is no
longer possible to observe TTY_HUPPING while holding the tty lock
on another cpu.
Remove TTY_HUPPING bit definition.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Dropping the tty lock to acquire the tty->ldisc_sem allows several
race conditions (such as hangup while changing the ldisc) which requires
extra states and testing. The ldisc_sem->tty_lock lock order has
not been required since tty buffer ownership was moved to tty_port.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
The tty->ldisc_sem write lock is sufficient for serializing changes
to tty->ldisc; holding the tty lock is not required.
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Added recognition of EndRun Technologies PCIe PTP slave card
and setup two ttySx ports for communication with the card for
retrieval of PTP based time and to communicate with the card's
Linux OS.
Signed-off-by: Mike Skoog <mskoog@endruntechnologies.com>
Signed-off-by: Mike Korreng <mkorreng@endruntechnologies.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
The stale comment refers to lock behavior which was eliminated in
commit 6d76bd2618,
n_tty: Make N_TTY ldisc receive path lockless.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Packet mode can only be set for a pty master, and a pty master is
always in raw mode since its termios cannot be changed.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
The pty master read() can miss the wake up for a packet mode
status change. For example,
CPU 0 | CPU 1
n_tty_read() | n_tty_packet_mode_flush()
... | .
if (packet & link->ctrl_status) { | .
/* no new ctrl_status ATM */ | .
| spin_lock
| ctrl_status |= TIOCPKT_FLUSHREAD
| spin_unlock
| wake_up(link->read_wait)
} |
set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE) |
... |
The pty master read() will now sleep (assuming there is no input) having
missed the read_wait wakeup.
Set the task state before the condition test.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Updates to the packet mode enable require holding the ctrl_lock;
the serialization prevents corruption of adjacent fields.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Because pty_set_pktmode() does not claim the slave's ctrl_lock
to clear ->ctrl_status (to avoid unnecessary lock nesting),
pty_set_pktmode() may accidentally erase new ->ctrl_status updates.
For example,
CPU 0 | CPU 1
pty_set_pktmode() | pty_start()
spin_lock(master's ctrl_lock) |
tty->packet = 1 |
| if (tty->link->packet)
| spin_lock(slave's ctrl_lock)
| tty->ctrl_status = TIOCPKT_START
tty->link->ctrl_status = 0 |
Ensure the clear of ->ctrl_status occurs before packet mode is set
(and observable on another cpu).
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
The slave's ctrl_lock serializes updates to the ctrl_status field
only, whereas the master's ctrl_lock serializes updates to the
packet mode enable (ie., the master does not have ctrl_status and
the slave does not have packet mode). Thus, claiming the slave's
ctrl_lock to access ->packet is useless.
Unlocked reads of ->packet are already smp-safe.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hurley <peter@hurleysoftware.com>
Reviewed-by: Alan Cox <alan@linux.intel.com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Peter Hurley
Mike Skoog