Date: Fri, 16 Jul 2004 23:28:44 -0600 (MDT) From: "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com> To: green@freebsd.org Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: pccbb crashes when detaching (unsafe interrupt handler) Message-ID: <20040716.232844.15672191.imp@bsdimp.com> In-Reply-To: <20040715180854.GZ1626@green.homeunix.org> References: <20040715180854.GZ1626@green.homeunix.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In message: <20040715180854.GZ1626@green.homeunix.org>
Brian Fundakowski Feldman <green@freebsd.org> writes:
: Devices that attach to a pccbb end up getting screwed if they share
: interrupt handlers with anything else and one comes in at such time
: that the interrupt handler has been deallocated but not torn down.
How do they get screwed by this case? I considered these cases. What
scenario, exactly, does this cause problems for.
: There is no interrupt protection for the pccbb interrupt handler,
There doesn't need to be one because we preclude calling it when
things are in a bad state. Is there some case that we've not taken
care of?
: and the cleanest method I can think of is add a "don't run" count to
: the real ithread interrupt handler (parent); however, this is a fair
: bit of infrastructure if it's not something very useful, and in SMP,
: concurrent accesses of the local interrupt handler list in pccbb do
: need to be protected, not just preventing interrupt handlers.
I don't think this sort of insfrastructure is useful. I don't
understand when the case you are trying to protect against can happen,
so I'm having trouble seeing why the code is necessary.
: This is what I have so far, but I'm not happy with it because it
: seems like it would be so much nicer to increment a count on the
: ithread's intrhand and drain any current interrupt out of the
: ithread, but possibly making each interrupt a lot more expensive.
Like I said in another note, I don't like this because I don't want to
take out a lock on every interrupt to guard against such a rare case
as you've discovered (I'm assuming it is rare becuase I've never seen
it in 5 years of maintaining the code).
...
: if (sc->flags & CBB_CARD_OK) {
...
What I want to know is why the above check doesn't guard against this
problem. If the card is detached because you ejected it, the isr
already guards against calling the hanlders for this card.
Warner
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040716.232844.15672191.imp>