linux-kernel - Applied "regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators" to the regulator tree

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: <E1a4Djs-00006a-Ub@debutante>
Date:	Wed, 02 Dec 2015 20:10:56 +0000
From:	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:	Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>,
	Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Applied "regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators" to the regulator tree

The patch

   regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators

has been applied to the regulator tree at

   git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git 

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.  

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark

>From 49a6bb7a1c0963f260e4b0dcc2c0e56ec65a28b2 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:51:52 +0000
Subject: [PATCH] regulator: core: Ensure we lock all regulators

The latest workaround for the lockdep interface's not using the second
argument of mutex_lock_nested() changed the loop missed locking the last
regulator due to a thinko with the loop termination condition exiting
one regulator too soon.

Reported-by: Tyler Baker <tyler.baker@...aro.org>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
---
 drivers/regulator/core.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c
index daffff83ced2..f71db02fcb71 100644
--- a/drivers/regulator/core.c
+++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c
@@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ static void regulator_lock_supply(struct regulator_dev *rdev)
 	int i;

 	mutex_lock(&rdev->mutex);
-	for (i = 1; rdev->supply; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++)
+	for (i = 1; rdev; rdev = rdev->supply->rdev, i++)
 		mutex_lock_nested(&rdev->mutex, i);
 }

-- 
2.6.2

--
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/