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]
Date:   Wed, 28 Oct 2020 09:33:20 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <>
To:     Dmitry Osipenko <>
Cc:     Thierry Reding <>,
        Jonathan Hunter <>,
        Georgi Djakov <>,
        Rob Herring <>,
        Michael Turquette <>,
        Stephen Boyd <>,
        Peter De Schrijver <>,
        MyungJoo Ham <>,
        Kyungmin Park <>,
        Chanwoo Choi <>,
        Mikko Perttunen <>,
        Viresh Kumar <>,
        Peter Geis <>,
        Nicolas Chauvet <>,
        Krzysztof Kozlowski <>,,,,,
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 46/52] opp: Put interconnect paths outside of

On 27-10-20, 23:26, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> 27.10.2020 08:10, Viresh Kumar пишет:
> > On 26-10-20, 01:17, Dmitry Osipenko wrote:
> >> This patch fixes lockup which happens when OPP table is released if
> >> interconnect provider uses OPP in the icc_provider->set() callback
> >> and bandwidth of the ICC path is set to 0 by the ICC core when path
> >> is released. The icc_put() doesn't need the opp_table_lock protection,
> >> hence let's move it outside of the lock in order to resolve the problem.
> >>
> >> In particular this fixes tegra-devfreq driver lockup on trying to unload
> >> the driver module. The devfreq driver uses OPP-bandwidth API and its ICC
> >> provider also uses OPP for DVFS, hence they both take same opp_table_lock
> >> when OPP table of the devfreq is released.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Dmitry Osipenko <>
> >> ---
> ...
> > 
> > Never make such _fixes_ part of such a big patchset. Always send them
> > separately.
> Perhaps it's not obvious from the commit description that this patch
> doesn't fix any known problems of the current mainline kernel and it's
> needed only for the new patches.

No, I understood that we started getting the warning now only after
some other patches of yours. Nevertheless, it should be considered as
a fix only as that generated lockdep because of locking placement. And
so sending such stuff separately is better as that allows people to
apply it fast.

> > Having said that, I already have a patch with me which shall fix it for you as
> > well:
> I see that yours fix is already applied, thanks!

I hope it worked for you. Thanks.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists