linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] wireless: wl12xx, fix lock imbalance

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]

Message-ID: <4A5BAABF.9020708@gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 13 Jul 2009 23:44:31 +0200
From:	Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@...il.com>
To:	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] wireless: wl12xx, fix lock imbalance

On 07/13/2009 11:40 PM, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Mon, 2009-07-13 at 23:24 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
>> Add omitted mutex_unlock to one of wl12xx_op_start fail paths (when
>> wl12xx_chip_wakeup fails).
> 
> By the way, are you using some tool to find these?

Yup, it's called stanse[1], but we still work on that to make it stable.

> I've had local hacks
> many times to make sparse aware of mutexes, is there a reason they are
> not annotated with __acquire(s)/__release(s) like spinlocks etc.?

Mutexes are often locked/unlocked interprocedural which I think sparse
can't do much about.

[1] http://iti.fi.muni.cz/stanse/
--
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/