linux-kernel - Re: Staging: serqt_usb2: kmalloc(GFP_NOIO) with spinlock held in qt_break() and qt

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: <20110805151747.GB18527@suse.de>
Date:	Fri, 5 Aug 2011 08:17:47 -0700
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...e.de>
To:	Alexey Khoroshilov <khoroshilov@...ras.ru>
Cc:	wfp5p@...ginia.edu, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Staging: serqt_usb2: kmalloc(GFP_NOIO) with spinlock held in
 qt_break() and qt_tiocmset()

On Fri, Aug 05, 2011 at 06:35:10PM +0400, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> qt_break() calls usb_control_msg() with spinlock held,

Ick, not good, that will sleep.

> while usb_control_msg() calls kmalloc(GFP_NOIO) and indirectly usb_alloc_urb(GFP_NOIO).

You forgot the obvious call to wait_for_completion_timeout() in the
usb_control_msg() callchain that shows that a spinlock is not a good
thing to be using here :)

> The same is true for qt_tiocmget() and qt_tiocmset().
> 
> Is replacing spinlock with mutex an appropriate solution to fix the issue?

Yes, it sounds like it.

patches gladly accepted.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
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/