linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from regulator

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Mon, 28 Mar 2011 19:11:51 +0100
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
To:	David Collins <collinsd@...eaurora.org>
Cc:	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
	linux-arm-msm-owner@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regulator: Remove possible deadlock from
 regulator_enable

On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 08:34:41AM -0700, David Collins wrote:

Review curtailed by me having to dash off but one comment...

> -/* locks held by regulator_enable() */
> +/* Locks are *not* held by regulator_enable(). */
>  static int _regulator_enable(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
>  {
> -	int ret, delay;
> +	struct regulator_dev *supply_rdev = NULL;
> +	int ret = 0, delay;
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);

This is going to be terribly confusing - the _ versions of the functions
all by convention rely on their callers taking the mutex, allowing them
to be safely used from internal APIs.  
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/