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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2019 12:50:23 -0700 From: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> To: Doug Anderson <dianders@...omium.org> Cc: Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>, Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>, Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>, Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>, Benson Leung <bleung@...omium.org>, Enric Balletbo i Serra <enric.balletbo@...labora.com>, Guenter Roeck <groeck@...omium.org>, linux-iio <linux-iio@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Gwendal Grignou <gwendal@...omium.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH] iio: cros_ec_accel_legacy: Always release lock when returning from _read() On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:40:42PM -0700, Doug Anderson wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:10 PM Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> wrote: > > > > Before doing any actual work cros_ec_accel_legacy_read() acquires > > a mutex, which is released at the end of the function. However for > > 'calibbias' channels the function returns directly, without releasing > > the lock. The next attempt to acquire the lock blocks forever. Instead > > of an explicit return statement use the common return path, which > > releases the lock. > > > > Fixes: 11b86c7004ef1 ("platform/chrome: Add cros_ec_accel_legacy driver") > > Signed-off-by: Matthias Kaehlcke <mka@...omium.org> > > --- > > drivers/iio/accel/cros_ec_accel_legacy.c | 3 ++- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > See also <https://lkml.kernel.org/r/39403a4c-bf7f-6a98-890c-57397fa66493@collabora.com> > > Actually, the "Fixes" tag is wrong here, though. The problem only > exists because we have <https://crrev.com/c/1632659> in our tree, AKA > ("FROMLIST: iio: cros_ec : Extend legacy support to ARM device"). > Before that there was no mutex. For upstream purposes this could > probably be squashed into the original patch. Oops, I didn't realize that upstream doesn't have the mutex. In this case the entire patch as is with it's commit message doesn't make much sense.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists