linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc2: gadget: sparse warning of context imbalance

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <A2CA0424C0A6F04399FB9E1CD98E0304844E2A38@US01WEMBX2.internal.synopsys.com>
Date:	Thu, 16 Oct 2014 18:25:35 +0000
From:	Paul Zimmerman <Paul.Zimmerman@...opsys.com>
To:	Sudip Mukherjee <sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com>,
	Felipe Balbi <balbi@...com>
CC:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"linux-usb@...r.kernel.org" <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH v2 2/2] usb: dwc2: gadget: sparse warning of context
 imbalance

> From: Sudip Mukherjee [mailto:sudipm.mukherjee@...il.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 16, 2014 7:52 AM
> 
> On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 08:21:55AM -0500, Felipe Balbi wrote:
> > HI,
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 16, 2014 at 01:11:10PM +0530, Sudip Mukherjee wrote:
> > > sparse was giving the following warning:
> > >         warning: context imbalance in 's3c_hsotg_ep_enable'
> > > 	        - different lock contexts for basic block
> > >
> > > we were returning ENOMEM while still holding the spinlock.
> > > The sparse warning was fixed by releasing the spinlock before return.
> > >
> > > This patch depends on the previous patch of the series.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Sudip Mukherjee <sudip@...torindia.org>
> >
> > this should be patch one so it can be backported to stable kernels.
> >
> my v1 patch fixed only this , while reviewing that one Paul Zimmerman suggested to rewrite the return
> statements.
> so this v2 series had the rewrite and the spinlock error fix.
> now if this is to be made the patch one then it will be a duplicate of my v1 followed by another patch
> for return statements.
> should i do that ?

Hi Sudip,

Please make the first patch like I showed in my previous reply. Then we
can mark that one for stable to fix the bug. Then make a second patch to
change the other error path.

-- 
Paul

--
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/