linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic

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: <20170329160653.5fcyqiuxr7j36655@linutronix.de>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 18:06:53 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>
Cc:     Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@...com>,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        tglx@...utronix.de, Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic

On 2017-03-22 09:05:58 [-0700], Steven Rostedt wrote:
> On Wed, 22 Mar 2017 16:18:43 +0100
> Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@...com> wrote:
> 
> > Use raw_spin_lock in enable/disable channel as it comes from
> > interrupt context.
> > 
> > BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context at
> > kernel/locking/rtmutex.c:995
> > in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 128, pid: 307, name: pulseaudio
> > Preemption disabled at:
> > [<c01790fc>] __handle_domain_irq+0x4c/0xec
> > CPU: 0 PID: 307 Comm: pulseaudio
> > Hardware name: STi SoC with Flattened Device Tree
> > [<c011046c>] (unwind_backtrace)
> > [<c010c7f4>] (show_stack)
> > [<c03d1578>] (dump_stack)
> > [<c014e440>] (___might_sleep)
> > [<c08e7f24>] (rt_spin_lock)
> > [<c069bb04>] (sti_mbox_disable_channel)
> > [<c069befc>] (sti_mbox_irq_handler)
> > [<c0179900>] (__handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > [<c01799dc>] (handle_irq_event_percpu)
> > [<c0179a78>] (handle_irq_event)
> > [<c017d1c8>] (handle_fasteoi_irq)
> > [<c0178c08>] (generic_handle_irq)
> > [<c017912c>] (__handle_domain_irq)
> > [<c0101488>] (gic_handle_irq)
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Lionel Debieve <lionel.debieve@...com>
> 
> Looks fine to me. Should this go to mainline?
> 
> Acked-by: Steven Rostedt (VMware) <rostedt@...dmis.org>

Could this be applied upstream, please? From looking at the thread there
was no reason not to do so.

> -- Steve
> 
> > ---
> >  drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c | 12 ++++++------
> >  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c index 41bcd33..f9674ca 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mailbox/mailbox-sti.c
> > @@ -60,7 +60,7 @@ struct sti_mbox_device {
> >  	void __iomem		*base;
> >  	const char		*name;
> >  	u32			enabled[STI_MBOX_INST_MAX];
> > -	spinlock_t		lock;
> > +	raw_spinlock_t		lock;
> >  };
> >  
> >  /**
> > @@ -129,10 +129,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_enable_channel(struct
> > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> >  	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  	mdev->enabled[instance] |= BIT(channel);
> >  	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_SET_OFFSET);
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > @@ -144,10 +144,10 @@ static void sti_mbox_disable_channel(struct
> > mbox_chan *chan) unsigned long flags;
> >  	void __iomem *base = MBOX_BASE(mdev, instance);
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  	mdev->enabled[instance] &= ~BIT(channel);
> >  	writel_relaxed(BIT(channel), base + STI_ENA_CLR_OFFSET);
> > -	spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> > +	raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&mdev->lock, flags);
> >  }
> >  
> >  static void sti_mbox_clear_irq(struct mbox_chan *chan)
> > @@ -450,7 +450,7 @@ static int sti_mbox_probe(struct platform_device
> > *pdev) mdev->dev		= &pdev->dev;
> >  	mdev->mbox		= mbox;
> >  
> > -	spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> > +	raw_spin_lock_init(&mdev->lock);
> >  
> >  	/* STi Mailbox does not have a Tx-Done or Tx-Ready IRQ */
> >  	mbox->txdone_irq	= false;

Sebastian