linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing spin_unlock

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <201005262113.38450.marek.vasut@gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 26 May 2010 21:13:37 +0200
From:	Marek Vasut <marek.vasut@...il.com>
To:	"Russell King - ARM Linux" <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/17] arch/arm/common: Add missing spin_unlock_irqrestore

Dne St 26. května 2010 20:43:58 Russell King - ARM Linux napsal(a):
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 07:07:06PM +0200, Marek Vasut wrote:
> > Why are "readl"s protected by spinlock anyway ? Can't we just move the
> > locking past the code above ?
> 
> Good question - and there seems to be a deadlock waiting to happen -
> sa1111_wake() re-takes the same lock.
> 
> I think we should kill all the spinlock in sa1111_resume().

Russell, Julia, check the patch I posted. Comments are welcome.

btw. Russell, killing the spinlock in resume might be overkill. If there was any 
reason for that being there, it was for the write ops so I'd rather keep those 
locked. Anyone with actual hardware available should look into that though.
--
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/