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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAMuHMdUrhV9RkUnXkTbSWaRY33iQrANwbKBE5KAPQseNgxOofg@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Dec 2017 15:58:00 +0100 From: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org> To: shrikant.maurya@...hveda.org Cc: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>, Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>, Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Linux PM list <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Suniel Mahesh <sunil.m@...hveda.org>, Karthik Tummala <karthik@...hveda.org>, raghu@...hveda.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers: base: power: Fix GFP_KERNEL in spinlock context Hi Shrikant, On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 2:45 PM, <shrikant.maurya@...hveda.org> wrote: > From: Shrikant Maurya <shrikant.maurya@...hveda.org> > > As reported by Jia-Ju Bai (https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/12/11/872): > API's are using GFP_KERNEL to allocate memory which may sleep. > > To ensure atomicity such allocations must be avoided in critical > sections under spinlock. > Fixed by replacing GFP_KERNEL to GFP_ATOMIC. > > Reported-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com> > Signed-off-by: Shrikant Maurya <shrikant.maurya@...hveda.org> > Signed-off-by: Suniel Mahesh <sunil.m@...hveda.org> > Signed-off-by: Raghu Bharadwaj <raghu@...hveda.org> > Signed-off-by: Karthik Tummala <karthik@...hveda.org> Can't the call to device_init_wakeup() in isp116x_start() just be moved below the spinlock release? > --- a/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c > +++ b/drivers/base/power/wakeup.c > @@ -92,11 +92,11 @@ struct wakeup_source *wakeup_source_create(const char *name) > { > struct wakeup_source *ws; > > - ws = kmalloc(sizeof(*ws), GFP_KERNEL); > + ws = kmalloc(sizeof(*ws), GFP_ATOMIC); With GFP_ATOMIC, allocation failure is much more likely to occur. So IMHO it's better to fix the isp116x, than to impose this burden on every user. > if (!ws) > return NULL; > > - wakeup_source_prepare(ws, name ? kstrdup_const(name, GFP_KERNEL) : NULL); > + wakeup_source_prepare(ws, name ? kstrdup_const(name, GFP_ATOMIC) : NULL); > return ws; > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(wakeup_source_create); Gr{oetje,eeting}s, Geert -- Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@...ux-m68k.org In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that. -- Linus Torvalds
Powered by blists - more mailing lists