linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] iio: inkern: fix a static checker error

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: <34d62036-3681-0e8d-398e-bdc867ae8377@axentia.se>
Date:   Tue, 25 Apr 2017 19:11:25 +0200
From:   Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
To:     Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
        <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:     Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
        Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
        Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
        <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: inkern: fix a static checker error

On 2017-04-25 18:01, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
> On 04/24/2017 11:32 AM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>> On 2017-04-20 23:13, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>> On 2017-04-20 23:12, Lars-Peter Clausen wrote:
>>>> On 04/20/2017 11:01 PM, Peter Rosin wrote:
>>>>> Avoid this smatch error:
>>>>> drivers/iio/inkern.c:751 iio_read_avail_channel_raw() error: double unlock 'mutex:&chan->indio_dev->info_exist_lock'
>>>>
>>>> Looks good, but it's not just the smatch error, this is a real issue. This
>>>> even seems to be a endless loop, always jumping back to err_unlock.
>>>
>>> Yes, it should probably go to stable too...
>>
>> Nope, not an endless loop, but I of course only noticed after sending
>> a v2 [1] which falsely stated just that. Ignore that v2 patch and take
>> this one instead, for the reasons stated in my followup [2] to that
>> message.
>>
>> Involving stable is probably not needed either...
> 
> Right, my fault for sending you the wrong way. Sorry for that.

No no, don't worry, I was already down that path without your help.

I just thought everybody would see the obvious bug and the urgency
when it was pointed out to them with a patch. Like you did. And I
was in a hurry for it to have a slim chance of getting in before
4.12 (but then -rc8 happened instead) so didn't spend a lot of time
crafting a thorough commit message (nor analyzing the problem, but
why would I when I had a very clear picture of an endless loop on
error?). But in the end it wasn't really that obvious, was it? And
not that urgent either. Stupid damn bug...

Cheers,
peda