[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.1809051026540.15880@cbobk.fhfr.pm>
Date: Wed, 5 Sep 2018 10:29:29 +0200 (CEST)
From: Jiri Kosina <jikos@...nel.org>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@...il.com>
cc: benjamin.tissoires@...hat.com, linux-input@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hid: hid-core: Fix a sleep-in-atomic-context bug in
__hid_request()
On Sat, 1 Sep 2018, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
> The driver may sleep with holding a spinlock.
>
> The function call paths (from bottom to top) in Linux-4.16 are:
>
> [FUNC] hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
> drivers/hid/hid-core.c, 1435:
> hid_alloc_report_buf in __hid_request
> ./include/linux/hid.h, 1023:
> __hid_request in hid_hw_request
> drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c, 111:
> hid_hw_request in picolcd_send_and_wait
> drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c, 100:
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in picolcd_send_and_wait
>
> [FUNC] hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
> drivers/hid/hid-core.c, 1435:
> hid_alloc_report_buf in __hid_request
> ./include/linux/hid.h, 1023:
> __hid_request in hid_hw_request
> drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c, 245:
> hid_hw_request in picolcd_reset
> drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_core.c, 235:
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in picolcd_reset
>
> [FUNC] hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
> drivers/hid/hid-core.c, 1435:
> hid_alloc_report_buf in __hid_request
> ./include/linux/hid.h, 1023:
> __hid_request in hid_hw_request
> drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_fb.c, 215:
> hid_hw_request in picolcd_fb_reset
> drivers/hid/hid-picolcd_fb.c, 206:
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in picolcd_fb_reset
>
> [FUNC] hid_alloc_report_buf(GFP_KERNEL)
> drivers/hid/hid-core.c, 1435:
> hid_alloc_report_buf in __hid_request
> ./include/linux/hid.h, 1023:
> __hid_request in hid_hw_request
> drivers/hid/hid-lg4ff.c, 465:
> hid_hw_request in lg4ff_play
> drivers/hid/hid-lg4ff.c, 441:
> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in lg4ff_play
>
> To fix this bug, GFP_KERNEL is replaced with GFP_ATOMIC.
>
> This bug is found by my static analysis tool DSAC.
Could you please rewrite the changelog so that it's human readable? The
above is a bit hard to understand, I think something along the lines of
"__hid_request() has to be allocating with GFP_ATOMIC because there are
the following callchains leading to __hid_request() being an atomic
context: ... a->b->c.._hid_request()" etc.
Thanks,
--
Jiri Kosina
SUSE Labs
Powered by blists - more mailing lists