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
| ||
|
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
Powered by blists - more mailing lists