commit c8e33141911bf8fe87dc6c92793b9a59b2be0130 upstream.
The locking logic in this function is extremely subtle, and it broke
when we started doing potentially concurrent 'flush_to_ldisc()' calls in
commit e043e42bdb ("pty: avoid forcing
'low_latency' tty flag").
The code in flush_to_ldisc() used to set 'tty->buf.head' to NULL, with
the intention that this would then cause any other concurrent calls to
not do anything (locking note: we have to drop the buf.lock over the
call to ->receive_buf that can block, which is why we can have
concurrency here at all in the first place).
It also used to set the TTY_FLUSHING bit, which would then cause any
concurrent 'tty_buffer_flush()' to not free all the tty buffers and
clear 'tty->buf.tail'. And with 'buf.head' being NULL, and 'buf.tail'
being non-NULL, new data would never touch 'buf.head'.
Does that sound a bit too subtle? It was. If another concurrent call to
'flush_to_ldisc()' were to come in, the NULL buf.head would indeed cause
it to not process the buffer list, but it would still clear TTY_FLUSHING
afterwards, making the buffer protection against 'tty_buffer_flush()' no
longer work.
So this clears it all up. We depend purely on TTY_FLUSHING for handling
re-entrancy, and stop playing games with the buffer list entirely. In
fact, the buffer list handling is now robust enough that we could
probably stop doing the whole "protect against 'tty_buffer_flush()'"
thing entirely.
However, Alan also points out that we would probably be better off
simplifying the locking even further, and just take the tty ldisc_mutex
around all the buffer flushing calls. That seems like a good idea, but
in the meantime this is a conceptually minimal fix (with the patch
itself being bigger than required just to clean the code up and make it
readable).
This fixes keyboard trouble under X:
http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14388
Reported-and-tested-by: Frédéric Meunier <fredlwm@gmail.com>
Reported-and-tested-by: Boyan <btanastasov@yahoo.co.uk>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Paul Fulghum <paulkf@microgate.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de>
We really don't want to mark the pty as a low-latency device, because as
Alan points out, the ->write method can be called from an IRQ (ppp?),
and that means we can't use ->low_latency=1 as we take mutexes in the
low_latency case.
So rather than using low_latency to force the written data to be pushed
to the ldisc handling at 'write()' time, just make the reader side (or
the poll function) do the flush when it checks whether there is data to
be had.
This also fixes the problem with lost data in an emacs compile buffer
(bugzilla 13815), and we can thus revert the low_latency pty hack
(commit 3a54297478: "pty: quickfix for the
pty ENXIO timing problems").
Signed-off-by: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Tested-by: Aneesh Kumar K.V <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
[ Modified to do the tty_flush_to_ldisc() inside input_available_p() so
that it triggers for both read and poll() - Linus]
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
The two are basically independent chunks of code so lets split them up for
readability and sanity. It also makes the API boundaries much clearer.
Signed-off-by: Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
