linux-kernel - [PATCH 3.12 141/176] pinctrl: Fix two deadlocks

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:	Wed, 28 Jan 2015 15:29:31 +0100
From:	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
To:	stable@...r.kernel.org
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Jim Lin <jilin@...dia.com>,
	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>,
	Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: [PATCH 3.12 141/176] pinctrl: Fix two deadlocks

From: Jim Lin <jilin@...dia.com>

3.12-stable review patch.  If anyone has any objections, please let me know.

===============

commit db93facfb0ef542aa5d8079e47580b3e669a4d82 upstream.

This patch is to fix two deadlock cases.
Deadlock 1:
CPU #1
 pinctrl_register-> pinctrl_get ->
 create_pinctrl
 (Holding lock pinctrl_maps_mutex)
 -> get_pinctrl_dev_from_devname
 (Trying to acquire lock pinctrldev_list_mutex)
CPU #0
 pinctrl_unregister
 (Holding lock pinctrldev_list_mutex)
 -> pinctrl_put ->> pinctrl_free ->
 pinctrl_dt_free_maps -> pinctrl_unregister_map
 (Trying to acquire lock pinctrl_maps_mutex)

Simply to say
CPU#1 is holding lock A and trying to acquire lock B,
CPU#0 is holding lock B and trying to acquire lock A.

Deadlock 2:
CPU #3
 pinctrl_register-> pinctrl_get ->
 create_pinctrl
 (Holding lock pinctrl_maps_mutex)
 -> get_pinctrl_dev_from_devname
 (Trying to acquire lock pinctrldev_list_mutex)
CPU #2
 pinctrl_unregister
 (Holding lock pctldev->mutex)
 -> pinctrl_put ->> pinctrl_free ->
 pinctrl_dt_free_maps -> pinctrl_unregister_map
 (Trying to acquire lock pinctrl_maps_mutex)
CPU #0
 tegra_gpio_request
 (Holding lock pinctrldev_list_mutex)
 -> pinctrl_get_device_gpio_range
 (Trying to acquire lock pctldev->mutex)

Simply to say
CPU#3 is holding lock A and trying to acquire lock D,
CPU#2 is holding lock B and trying to acquire lock A,
CPU#0 is holding lock D and trying to acquire lock B.

Signed-off-by: Jim Lin <jilin@...dia.com>
Signed-off-by: Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
---
 drivers/pinctrl/core.c | 5 +++--
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
index a1ffae4c3770..260a2551d612 100644
--- a/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
+++ b/drivers/pinctrl/core.c
@@ -1796,14 +1796,15 @@ void pinctrl_unregister(struct pinctrl_dev *pctldev)
 	if (pctldev == NULL)
 		return;
 
-	mutex_lock(&pinctrldev_list_mutex);
 	mutex_lock(&pctldev->mutex);
-
 	pinctrl_remove_device_debugfs(pctldev);
+	mutex_unlock(&pctldev->mutex);
 
 	if (!IS_ERR(pctldev->p))
 		pinctrl_put(pctldev->p);
 
+	mutex_lock(&pinctrldev_list_mutex);
+	mutex_lock(&pctldev->mutex);
 	/* TODO: check that no pinmuxes are still active? */
 	list_del(&pctldev->node);
 	/* Destroy descriptor tree */
-- 
2.2.2

--
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/