linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 07/22] drm/msm: Do rpm get sooner in the submit path

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]

Date:   Tue, 17 Nov 2020 15:33:38 +0530
From:   Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>
To:     Rob Clark <robdclark@...il.com>
Cc:     Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Rob Clark <robdclark@...omium.org>,
        Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>, David Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR MSM ADRENO GPU" 
        <linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org>,
        "open list:DRM DRIVER FOR MSM ADRENO GPU" 
        <freedreno@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "Menon, Nishanth" <nm@...com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 07/22] drm/msm: Do rpm get sooner in the submit path

On Fri, 6 Nov 2020 at 12:46, Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
>
> On 05-11-20, 11:24, Rob Clark wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 7:04 PM Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 03-11-20, 08:50, Rob Clark wrote:
> > > > sorry, it didn't apply cleanly (which I guess is due to some other
> > > > dependencies that need to be picked back to v5.4 product kernel), and
> > > > due to some other things I'm in middle of debugging I didn't have time
> > > > yet to switch to v5.10-rc or look at what else needs to
> > > > cherry-picked..
> > > >
> > > > If you could, pushing a branch with this patch somewhere would be a
> > > > bit easier to work with (ie. fetch && cherry-pick is easier to deal
> > > > with than picking things from list)
> > >
> > > It has been in linux-next for a few days. Here is the HEAD to pick
> > > from. There are few patches there since rc1.
> > >
> > > commit 203e29749cc0 ("opp: Allocate the OPP table outside of opp_table_lock")
> > >
> >
> > sorry for the delay, with that cherry-picked, I'm getting a whole lot of:
>
> Ahh, sorry about that and thanks for reporting it. Here is the fix:
>
> diff --git a/drivers/opp/of.c b/drivers/opp/of.c
> index c718092757d9..6b7f0066942d 100644
> --- a/drivers/opp/of.c
> +++ b/drivers/opp/of.c
> @@ -112,8 +112,6 @@ static struct opp_table *_find_table_of_opp_np(struct device_node *opp_np)
>         struct opp_table *opp_table;
>         struct device_node *opp_table_np;
>
> -       lockdep_assert_held(&opp_table_lock);
> -
>         opp_table_np = of_get_parent(opp_np);
>         if (!opp_table_np)
>                 goto err;
> @@ -121,12 +119,15 @@ static struct opp_table *_find_table_of_opp_np(struct device_node *opp_np)
>         /* It is safe to put the node now as all we need now is its address */
>         of_node_put(opp_table_np);
>
> +       mutex_lock(&opp_table_lock);
>         list_for_each_entry(opp_table, &opp_tables, node) {
>                 if (opp_table_np == opp_table->np) {
>                         _get_opp_table_kref(opp_table);
> +                       mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock);
>                         return opp_table;
>                 }
>         }
> +       mutex_unlock(&opp_table_lock);
>
>  err:
>         return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);

Ping.