linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

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]

Date:	Tue, 10 Sep 2013 16:34:20 -0600
From:	Stephen Warren <swarren@...dotorg.org>
To:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:	Lars Poeschel <poeschel@...onage.de>,
	Javier Martinez Canillas <javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Lars Poeschel <larsi@....tu-dresden.de>,
	Grant Likely <grant.likely@...aro.org>,
	"linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org" <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"devicetree@...r.kernel.org" <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@...rix.com>,
	Kumar Gala <galak@...eaurora.org>,
	Pawel Moll <pawel.moll@....com>,
	Tomasz Figa <tomasz.figa@...il.com>,
	Enric Balletbo i Serra <eballetbo@...il.com>,
	Jean-Christophe PLAGNIOL-VILLARD <plagnioj@...osoft.com>,
	Santosh Shilimkar <santosh.shilimkar@...com>,
	Kevin Hilman <khilman@...aro.org>,
	Balaji T K <balajitk@...com>,
	Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
	Jon Hunter <jgchunter@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] gpio: interrupt consistency check for OF GPIO IRQs

On 09/10/2013 03:37 PM, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 01:53:47PM -0600, Stephen Warren wrote:
> 
>> Doesn't this patch call gpio_request() on the GPIO first, and
>> hence prevent the driver's own gpio_request() from succeeding,
>> since the GPIO is already requested? If this is not a problem, it
>> sounds like a bug in gpio_request() not ensuring mutual exclusion
>> for the GPIO.
> 
> Or at the very least something that's likely to break in the
> future.

Looking at the GPIO code, it already prevents double-requests:

>         if (test_and_set_bit(FLAG_REQUESTED, &desc->flags) == 0) {
>                 desc_set_label(desc, label ? : "?");
>                 status = 0;
>         } else {
>                 status = -EBUSY;
>                 module_put(chip->owner);
>                 goto done;
>         }

And I tested it in practice, and it really does fail.
--
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/