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  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]
Date:   Tue, 4 Apr 2017 08:33:05 +0000
From:   Lionel DEBIEVE <lionel.debieve@...com>
To:     Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
CC:     Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
        Jassi Brar <jassisinghbrar@...il.com>,
        "linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org" <linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RT 1/1] remoteproc: Prevent schedule while atomic

Hi,

Looking at the thread discussion, except architecture discussion around the IRQF_ONESHOT, I think it could go to upstream too.

I'll re-upload patch for upstream.

Thanks for reviewing.

BR,

Lionel


On 03/30/2017 09:54 AM, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2017, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote:
>
>> 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.
> Acked-by: Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
>
>>>> ---
>>>>   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