On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 09:21:08AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 6:37 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 10:00:36AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:

quoted

quoted

so I marked it as -stable because I have explained how the race can be
exploited in reality.

Ok, but as this has been there since when, 2.5, I'll refrain from
marking it this way, as no one has reported a real problem like this
before.

So have you agreed on keeping Cc: stable in v3?

No.

quoted

quoted

I still have more many examples in kernel about timeout value...

Yes, I know this, but now you are putting a limit on the amount of time

No, I don't put a limit on it, see my below explanation.

quoted

a probe function can take, when before, we have never had one. �That's
not something to be taken lightly, and is one I know is not true.

quoted

quoted

Why not just do a real lock and try for forever?

IMO, there are two advantages not just doing a real lock for forever:

- avoiding buggy device/driver to hang the system
- with trylock, we can log the buggy device so that it is a bit
easier to troubleshoot the buggy drivers, suppose the bug is
only triggered 1 time in one year or more

No, just fix the driver, I don't want to put a time limit on how long

Surely we need to fix the driver, but the problem is that it may be very
difficult to fix the driver without the log introduced in the patch, so why
not take it without obvious side effect?

Because nothing is wrong with the driver if it takes that long, it's not
"broken" at all, because we have never made the rule that a probe
function has to complete in a specific amount of time.

We also have not made the rule that a shutdown will complete in a
specific amount of time either, so there is no problem if that takes a
long time as well.

greg k-h