linux-kernel - Re: [RFC][PATCH] mfd: mc13xxx-core: put mutex lock down to mc13xxx_reg

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: <20110503191525.GE11574@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 3 May 2011 21:15:25 +0200
From:	Uwe Kleine-König 
	<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>
To:	Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Yong Shen <yong.shen@...aro.org>,
	Samuel Ortiz <sameo@...ux.intel.com>,
	Liam Girdwood <lrg@...mlogic.co.uk>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nsource.wolfsonmicro.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] mfd: mc13xxx-core: put mutex lock down to
 mc13xxx_reg_rmw function

Hello Axel,

On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:27:59AM +0800, Axel Lin wrote:
> The mc13xxx_reg_rmw function is doing read/modify/write bitmask operations,
> thus add the lock to protect it.
> Then we can remove the lock/unlock from the caller.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Axel Lin <axel.lin@...il.com>
> ---
> Note I don't have the hardware handy for testing.
> I appreciate if someone who has the device can test this patch.
> Regards,
> Axel
> 
>  drivers/mfd/mc13xxx-core.c                 |    8 ++++++--
>  drivers/regulator/mc13892-regulator.c      |   16 +++++++---------
>  drivers/regulator/mc13xxx-regulator-core.c |    6 ------
>  3 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/mfd/mc13xxx-core.c b/drivers/mfd/mc13xxx-core.c
> index 7e4d44b..5fb0fcc 100644
[snip]
> diff --git a/drivers/regulator/mc13892-regulator.c b/drivers/regulator/mc13892-regulator.c
> index 1b8f739..679b315 100644
> --- a/drivers/regulator/mc13892-regulator.c
> +++ b/drivers/regulator/mc13892-regulator.c
> @@ -449,7 +449,8 @@ static int mc13892_sw_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
>  	ret = mc13xxx_reg_read(priv->mc13xxx,
>  		mc13892_regulators[id].vsel_reg, &val);
>  	if (ret)
> -		goto err;
> +		mc13xxx_unlock(priv->mc13xxx);
> +		return ret;
>  
>  	hi  = val & MC13892_SWITCHERS0_SWxHI;
>  	if (value > 1375)
> @@ -464,11 +465,10 @@ static int mc13892_sw_regulator_set_voltage(struct regulator_dev *rdev,
>  		value = (value - 600000) / 25000;
>  
>  	mask = mc13892_regulators[id].vsel_mask | MC13892_SWITCHERS0_SWxHI;
> -	ret = mc13xxx_reg_rmw(priv->mc13xxx, mc13892_regulators[id].vsel_reg,
> -			mask, value << mc13892_regulators[id].vsel_shift);
> -err:
>  	mc13xxx_unlock(priv->mc13xxx);
>  
> +	ret = mc13xxx_reg_rmw(priv->mc13xxx, mc13892_regulators[id].vsel_reg,
> +			mask, value << mc13892_regulators[id].vsel_shift);
I havn't looked deeply, but I guess this can have unwanted side effects
here. Before you had:

	lock()
	do(something)
	do(something, else, that, needs, rmw)
	unlock()

and you introduced an unlock()/lock() between these two do()s.

I'm not convinced this change is good, though I agree that

	lock()
	rmw(...)
	unlock()

looks ugly, but imho this can better be fixed by adding a wrapper for
that sequence if you really want.

Best regards
Uwe

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                           | Uwe Kleine-König            |
Industrial Linux Solutions                 | http://www.pengutronix.de/  |
--
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/