linux-kernel - Re: sleeping while atomic in dwc3_gadget

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:	Thu, 27 Jun 2013 09:57:52 -0700
From:	Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>
To:	balbi@...com
CC:	Vivek Gautam <gautam.vivek@...sung.com>, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: sleeping while atomic in dwc3_gadget_start

On 06/26/13 23:58, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 02:52:56PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I'm getting the folllowing BUG message on bootup with 3.10-rc5
>>
>> BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at mm/slub.c:926
>> in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 1, name: swapper/0
>> CPU: 0 PID: 1 Comm: swapper/0 Not tainted 3.10.0-rc5-gee3e35b-09316-ge78f3b35 #643
>> [<c0014220>] (unwind_backtrace+0x0/0x120) from [<c001212c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14)
>> [<c001212c>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) from [<c0143750>] (kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x3c/0x210)
>> [<c0143750>] (kmem_cache_alloc_trace+0x3c/0x210) from [<c00e0c60>] (request_threaded_irq+0x88/0x11c)
>> [<c00e0c60>] (request_threaded_irq+0x88/0x11c) from [<c03bf53c>] (dwc3_gadget_start+0x198/0x200)
>> [<c03bf53c>] (dwc3_gadget_start+0x198/0x200) from [<c03f7a5c>] (udc_bind_to_driver+0x70/0xd8)
>> [<c03f7a5c>] (udc_bind_to_driver+0x70/0xd8) from [<c03f7b50>] (usb_gadget_probe_driver+0x8c/0xb8)
>>
>> and I suspect this problem was introduced in commit 8698e2acf
>> (usb: dwc3: gadget: introduce and use enable/disable irq
>> methods). Is there a fix for this problem? Can we just move the
>> irq request outside the spinlock?
> nice :-)
>
> how about this ?

If start fails do you call stop? I believe the answer is no, so we'll
need to free_irq() somewhere along the error path. Or we can request it
after the spin_unlock()?

-- 
Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum,
hosted by The Linux Foundation

--
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/