/* * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. * * Copyright (C) Jonathan Naylor G4KLX (g4klx@g4klx.demon.co.uk) * Copyright (C) Joerg Reuter DL1BKE (jreuter@yaina.de) */ #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include #include void ax25_ds_nr_error_recovery(ax25_cb *ax25) { ax25_ds_establish_data_link(ax25); } /* * dl1bke 960114: transmit I frames on DAMA poll */ void ax25_ds_enquiry_response(ax25_cb *ax25) { ax25_cb *ax25o; /* Please note that neither DK4EG's nor DG2FEF's * DAMA spec mention the following behaviour as seen * with TheFirmware: * * DB0ACH->DL1BKE [DAMA] * DL1BKE->DB0ACH * DL1BKE-7->DB0PRA-6 DB0ACH * DL1BKE->DB0ACH * * The Flexnet DAMA Master implementation apparently * insists on the "proper" AX.25 behaviour: * * DB0ACH->DL1BKE [DAMA] * DL1BKE->DB0ACH * DL1BKE->DB0ACH * DL1BKE-7->DB0PRA-6 DB0ACH * * Flexnet refuses to send us *any* I frame if we send * a REJ in case AX25_COND_REJECT is set. It is superfluous in * this mode anyway (a RR or RNR invokes the retransmission). * Is this a Flexnet bug? */ ax25_std_enquiry_response(ax25); if (!(ax25->condition & AX25_COND_PEER_RX_BUSY)) { ax25_requeue_frames(ax25); ax25_kick(ax25); } if (ax25->state == AX25_STATE_1 || ax25->state == AX25_STATE_2 || skb_peek(&ax25->ack_queue) != NULL) ax25_ds_t1_timeout(ax25); else ax25->n2count = 0; ax25_start_t3timer(ax25); ax25_ds_set_timer(ax25->ax25_dev); spin_lock(&ax25_list_lock); ax25_for_each(ax25o, &ax25_list) { if (ax25o == ax25) continue; if (ax25o->ax25_dev != ax25->ax25_dev) continue; if (ax25o->state == AX25_STATE_1 || ax25o->state == AX25_STATE_2) { ax25_ds_t1_timeout(ax25o); continue; } if (!(ax25o->condition & AX25_COND_PEER_RX_BUSY) && ax25o->state == AX25_STATE_3) { ax25_requeue_frames(ax25o); ax25_kick(ax25o); } if (ax25o->state == AX25_STATE_1 || ax25o->state == AX25_STATE_2 || skb_peek(&ax25o->ack_queue) != NULL) ax25_ds_t1_timeout(ax25o); /* do not start T3 for listening sockets (tnx DD8NE) */ if (ax25o->state != AX25_STATE_0) ax25_start_t3timer(ax25o); } spin_unlock(&ax25_list_lock); } void ax25_ds_establish_data_link(ax25_cb *ax25) { ax25->condition &= AX25_COND_DAMA_MODE; ax25->n2count = 0; ax25_calculate_t1(ax25); ax25_start_t1timer(ax25); ax25_stop_t2timer(ax25); ax25_start_t3timer(ax25); } /* * :::FIXME::: * This is a kludge. Not all drivers recognize kiss commands. * We need a driver level request to switch duplex mode, that does * either SCC changing, PI config or KISS as required. Currently * this request isn't reliable. */ static void ax25_kiss_cmd(ax25_dev *ax25_dev, unsigned char cmd, unsigned char param) { struct sk_buff *skb; unsigned char *p; if (ax25_dev->dev == NULL) return; if ((skb = alloc_skb(2, GFP_ATOMIC)) == NULL) return; skb_reset_network_header(skb); p = skb_put(skb, 2); *p++ = cmd; *p++ = param; skb->protocol = ax25_type_trans(skb, ax25_dev->dev); dev_queue_xmit(skb); } /* * A nasty problem arises if we count the number of DAMA connections * wrong, especially when connections on the device already existed * and our network node (or the sysop) decides to turn on DAMA Master * mode. We thus flag the 'real' slave connections with * ax25->dama_slave=1 and look on every disconnect if still slave * connections exist. */ static int ax25_check_dama_slave(ax25_dev *ax25_dev) { ax25_cb *ax25; int res = 0; spin_lock(&ax25_list_lock); ax25_for_each(ax25, &ax25_list) if (ax25->ax25_dev == ax25_dev && (ax25->condition & AX25_COND_DAMA_MODE) && ax25->state > AX25_STATE_1) { res = 1; break; } spin_unlock(&ax25_list_lock); return res; } static void ax25_dev_dama_on(ax25_dev *ax25_dev) { if (ax25_dev == NULL) return; if (ax25_dev->dama.slave == 0) ax25_kiss_cmd(ax25_dev, 5, 1); ax25_dev->dama.slave = 1; ax25_ds_set_timer(ax25_dev); } void ax25_dev_dama_off(ax25_dev *ax25_dev) { if (ax25_dev == NULL) return; if (ax25_dev->dama.slave && !ax25_check_dama_slave(ax25_dev)) { ax25_kiss_cmd(ax25_dev, 5, 0); ax25_dev->dama.slave = 0; ax25_ds_del_timer(ax25_dev); } } void ax25_dama_on(ax25_cb *ax25) { ax25_dev_dama_on(ax25->ax25_dev); ax25->condition |= AX25_COND_DAMA_MODE; } void ax25_dama_off(ax25_cb *ax25) { ax25->condition &= ~AX25_COND_DAMA_MODE; ax25_dev_dama_off(ax25->ax25_dev); } > commit91539eb1fda2d530d3b268eef542c5414e54bf1a (patch) tree960f5ca6342ad20837aff18aad6e8ecd7da32fd6 /include/net/udplite.h parent6610d0edf6dc7ee97e46ab3a538a565c79d26199 (diff)
dmaengine: pl330: fix double lock
The static bug finder EBA (http://www.iagoabal.eu/eba/) reported the following double-lock bug: Double lock: 1. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at pl330_free_chan_resources:2236; 2. call to function `pl330_release_channel' immediately after; 3. call to function `dma_pl330_rqcb' in line 1753; 4. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at dma_pl330_rqcb:1505. I have fixed it as suggested by Marek Szyprowski. First, I have replaced `pch->lock' with `pl330->lock' in functions `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' and `pl330_free_chan_resources'. This avoids the double-lock by acquiring a different lock than `dma_pl330_rqcb'. NOTE that, as a result, `pl330_free_chan_resources' executes `list_splice_tail_init' on `pch->work_list' under lock `pl330->lock', whereas in the rest of the code `pch->work_list' is protected by `pch->lock'. I don't know if this may cause race conditions. Similarly `pch->cyclic' is written by `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' under `pl330->lock' but read by `pl330_tx_submit' under `pch->lock'. Second, I have removed locking from `pl330_request_channel' and `pl330_release_channel' functions. Function `pl330_request_channel' is only called from `pl330_alloc_chan_resources', so the lock is already held. Function `pl330_release_channel' is called from `pl330_free_chan_resources', which already holds the lock, and from `pl330_del'. Function `pl330_del' is called in an error path of `pl330_probe' and at the end of `pl330_remove', but I assume that there cannot be concurrent accesses to the protected data at those points. Signed-off-by: Iago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu> Reviewed-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com> Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>
Diffstat (limited to 'include/net/udplite.h')