linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: pinmux: Don't free pins requested by other devices in pinmux_disable

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: <520BAEA6.2070205@wwwdotorg.org>
Date:	Wed, 14 Aug 2013 10:21:58 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
CC:	Sonic Zhang <sonic.adi@...il.com>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	adi-buildroot-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@...log.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] pinctrl: pinmux: Don't free pins requested by other
 devices in pinmux_disable_setting.

On 08/14/2013 09:54 AM, Linus Walleij wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 14, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Sonic Zhang <sonic.adi@...il.com> wrote:
> 
>> From: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@...log.com>
>>
>> One peripheral may share part of its pins with the 2nd
>> peripheral and the other pins with the 3rd. If it requests all pins
>> when part of them has already be requested and owned by the 2nd
>> peripheral, this request fails and pinmux_disable_setting() is called.
>> The pinmux_disable_setting() frees all pins of the first peripheral
>> without checking if the pin is owned by itself or the 2nd, which
>> results in the malfunction of the 2nd peripheral driver.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Sonic Zhang <sonic.zhang@...log.com>
> 
> Hm it makes some sense so patch applied.
> 
> That said I think we currently have drivers where a pin group
> mapped to a certain function in a certain setting  *usually*
> don't overlap with pins in another group used with another
> function, and having it so seems racy, i.e. it will be some
> first-come-first-serve effect.
> 
> I will add a warning print.

Surely there's a warning print already when the enable_setting() fails,
so we don't need to do any more warning prints when the free_setting()
cleans up after that?

--
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/