linux-kernel - [139/200] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin

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: <20100701174258.151353253@clark.site>
Date:	Thu, 01 Jul 2010 10:43:49 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...nel.org
Cc:	stable-review@...nel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
	Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>,
	Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Subject: [139/200] arch/x86/kernel: Add missing spin_unlock

2.6.34-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

------------------

From: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>

commit 84fe6c19e4a598e8071e3bd1b2c923454eae1268 upstream.

Add a spin_unlock missing on the error path.  The locks and unlocks are
balanced in other functions, so it seems that the same should be the case
here.

The semantic match that finds this problem is as follows:
(http://coccinelle.lip6.fr/)

// <smpl>
@@
expression E1;
@@

* spin_lock(E1,...);
  <+... when != E1
  if (...) {
    ... when != E1
*   return ...;
  }
  ...+>
* spin_unlock(E1,...);
// </smpl>

Signed-off-by: Julia Lawall <julia@...u.dk>
Signed-off-by: Joerg Roedel <joerg.roedel@....com>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...e.de>

---
 arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c |   12 +++++++++---
 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/amd_iommu.c
@@ -1420,6 +1420,7 @@ static int __attach_device(struct device
 			   struct protection_domain *domain)
 {
 	struct iommu_dev_data *dev_data, *alias_data;
+	int ret;
 
 	dev_data   = get_dev_data(dev);
 	alias_data = get_dev_data(dev_data->alias);
@@ -1431,13 +1432,14 @@ static int __attach_device(struct device
 	spin_lock(&domain->lock);
 
 	/* Some sanity checks */
+	ret = -EBUSY;
 	if (alias_data->domain != NULL &&
 	    alias_data->domain != domain)
-		return -EBUSY;
+		goto out_unlock;
 
 	if (dev_data->domain != NULL &&
 	    dev_data->domain != domain)
-		return -EBUSY;
+		goto out_unlock;
 
 	/* Do real assignment */
 	if (dev_data->alias != dev) {
@@ -1453,10 +1455,14 @@ static int __attach_device(struct device
 
 	atomic_inc(&dev_data->bind);
 
+	ret = 0;
+
+out_unlock:
+
 	/* ready */
 	spin_unlock(&domain->lock);
 
-	return 0;
+	return ret;
 }
 
 /*


--
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/