linux-kernel - Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] EDAC/altera: Use fast register IO for S10 IRQs

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: <20191122090314.GC6289@zn.tnic>
Date:   Fri, 22 Nov 2019 10:03:15 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To:     thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com
Cc:     mchehab@...nel.org, tony.luck@...el.com, james.morse@....com,
        rrichter@...vell.com, Meng.Li@...driver.com,
        linux-edac@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/3] EDAC/altera: Use fast register IO for S10 IRQs

On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 12:30:46PM -0600, thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com wrote:
> From: Meng Li <Meng.Li@...driver.com>
> 
> When an irq occurs in altera edac driver, regmap_xxx() is invoked
> in atomic context. Regmap must indicate register IO is fast so
> that a spinlock is used instead of a mutex to avoid sleeping
> in atomic context.
> 
> Fixes mutex-lock error
>    lock_acquire+0xfc/0x288
>    __mutex_lock+0x8c/0x808
>    mutex_lock_nested+0x3c/0x50
>    regmap_lock_mutex+0x24/0x30
>    regmap_write+0x40/0x78
>    a10_eccmgr_irq_unmask+0x34/0x40
>    unmask_irq.part.0+0x30/0x50
>    irq_enable+0x74/0x80
>    __irq_startup+0x80/0xa8
>    irq_startup+0x70/0x150
>    __setup_irq+0x650/0x6d0
>    request_threaded_irq+0xe4/0x180
>    devm_request_threaded_irq+0x7c/0xf0
>    altr_sdram_probe+0x2c4/0x600
> <snip>
> 
> Upstream fix pending [1] (common code uses fast mode)
> [1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2019/11/7/1014
> 
> Fixes: 3dab6bd52687 ("EDAC, altera: Add support for Stratix10 SDRAM EDAC")
> Cc: stable@...r.kernel.org
> Reported-by: Meng Li <Meng.Li@...driver.com>
> Signed-off-by: Meng Li <Meng.Li@...driver.com>
> Reviewed-by: Thor Thayer <thor.thayer@...ux.intel.com>
> ---
> v2 Change Author to Meng Li & Reviewed-by: Thor Thayer

You don't absolutely need to have Reviewed-by: you, when you send
someone else's patch. The fact that you send it, kinda implies you've
reviewed it. I sure hope so, at least :-)

What the patch must have is your SOB unterneath. I'll fix that up when
applying.

Thx.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette