[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170726195636.GD30597@kroah.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2017 12:56:37 -0700
From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Ben Hutchings <ben.hutchings@...ethink.co.uk>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>,
Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 40/57] tpm: Provide strong locking for device removal
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 11:56:01PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-19 at 13:12 +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> > 4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
> >
> > ------------------
> >
> > From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
> >
> > commit 4e26195f240d73150e8308ae42874702e3df8d2c upstream.
> >
> > Add a read/write semaphore around the ops function pointers so
> > ops can be set to null when the driver un-registers.
> [...]
> > @@ -49,10 +99,10 @@ struct tpm_chip *tpm_chip_find_get(int c
> > if (chip_num != TPM_ANY_NUM && chip_num != pos->dev_num)
> > continue;
> >
> > - if (try_module_get(pos->dev.parent->driver->owner)) {
> > + /* rcu prevents chip from being free'd */
> > + if (!tpm_try_get_ops(pos))
> [...]
>
> But an RCU read-side critical section is an atomic context, and
> semaphore operations can block! Fixed upstream by:
>
> commit 15516788e581eb32ec1c50e5f00aba3faf95d817
> Author: Stefan Berger <stefanb@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
> Date: Mon Feb 29 08:53:02 2016 -0500
>
> tpm: Replace device number bitmap with IDR
Ugh, that's a big patch.
Jason, Stefan, and Jarkko, what do you think? Should I also take this
for 4.4-stable?
thanks,
greg k-h
Powered by blists - more mailing lists