On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 11:34:43AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> On 10/25/20 8:18 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 11:06:42AM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> >> On 10/18/20 11:58 AM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Oct 14, 2020 at 05:40:44PM -0500, David Lechner wrote:
> >>>> On 9/26/20 9:18 PM, William Breathitt Gray wrote:
> >>>>> +static ssize_t counter_chrdev_read(struct file *filp, char __user *buf,
> >>>>> +				   size_t len, loff_t *f_ps)
> >>>>> +{
> >>>>> +	struct counter_device *const counter = filp->private_data;
> >>>>> +	int err;
> >>>>> +	unsigned long flags;
> >>>>> +	unsigned int copied;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	if (len < sizeof(struct counter_event))
> >>>>> +		return -EINVAL;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	do {
> >>>>> +		if (kfifo_is_empty(&counter->events)) {
> >>>>> +			if (filp->f_flags & O_NONBLOCK)
> >>>>> +				return -EAGAIN;
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +			err = wait_event_interruptible(counter->events_wait,
> >>>>> +					!kfifo_is_empty(&counter->events));
> >>>>> +			if (err)
> >>>>> +				return err;
> >>>>> +		}
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +		raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&counter->events_lock, flags);
> >>>>> +		err = kfifo_to_user(&counter->events, buf, len, &copied);
> >>>>> +		raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&counter->events_lock, flags);
> >>>>> +		if (err)
> >>>>> +			return err;
> >>>>> +	} while (!copied);
> >>>>> +
> >>>>> +	return copied;
> >>>>> +}
> >>>>
> >>>> All other uses of kfifo_to_user() I saw use a mutex instead of spin
> >>>> lock. I don't see a reason for disabling interrupts here.
> >>>
> >>> The Counter character device interface is special in this case because
> >>> counter->events could be accessed from an interrupt context. This is
> >>> possible if counter_push_event() is called for an interrupt (as is the
> >>> case for the 104_quad_8 driver). In this case, we can't use mutex
> >>> because we can't sleep in an interrupt context, so our only option is to
> >>> use spin lock.
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> The way I understand it, locking is only needed for concurrent readers
> >> and locking between reader and writer is not needed.
> > 
> > You're right, it does say in the kfifo.h comments that with only one
> > concurrent reader and one current write, we don't need extra locking to
> > use these macros. Because we only have one kfifo_to_user() operating on
> > counter->events, does that mean we don't need locking at all here for
> > the counter_chrdev_read() function?
> > 
> > William Breathitt Gray
> > 
> 
> Even if we have the policy that only one file handle to the chrdev
> can be open at a time, it is still possible that the it could be
> read from multiple threads. So it I think it makes sense to keep
> it just to be safe.

All right, I'll keep the locks in the code for now to keep it safe in
case we have multiple threads reading.

William Breathitt Gray