linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] regulator: push allocation in regulator_init

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: <b27219ff-6cd8-399b-5710-cb5c2d99b21f@gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Aug 2020 19:27:43 +0300
From:   Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
To:     Michał Mirosław <mirq-linux@...e.qmqm.pl>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] regulator: push allocation in
 regulator_init_coupling() outside of lock

11.08.2020 18:59, Dmitry Osipenko пишет:
> 11.08.2020 04:07, Michał Mirosław пишет:
>> Allocating memory with regulator_list_mutex held makes lockdep unhappy
>> when memory pressure makes the system do fs_reclaim on eg. eMMC using
>> a regulator. Push the lock inside regulator_init_coupling() after the
>> allocation.
> ...
> 
> Reviewed-by: Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>
> 

On the other hand, couldn't it be better to just remove taking the
list_mutex from the regulator_lock_dependent()?

I think the list_mutex is only needed to protect from supply/couple
regulator being removed during of the locking process, but maybe this is
not something we should worry about?