[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7ee99788-d9a5-0a38-ed02-51d9b42ebc11@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 15 Aug 2021 11:49:26 +0300
From: Pavel Skripkin <paskripkin@...il.com>
To: Sean Young <sean@...s.org>
Cc: mkrufky@...uxtv.org, mchehab@...nel.org, crope@....fi,
linux-media@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
syzbot+5ca0bf339f13c4243001@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: mxl111sf: change mutex_init() location
On 8/15/21 11:37 AM, Sean Young wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 31, 2021 at 12:38:29AM +0300, Pavel Skripkin wrote:
>> Syzbot reported, that mxl111sf_ctrl_msg() uses uninitialized
>> mutex. The problem was in wrong mutex_init() location.
>>
>> Previous mutex_init(&state->msg_lock) call was in ->init() function, but
>> dvb_usbv2_init() has this order of calls:
>>
>> dvb_usbv2_init()
>> dvb_usbv2_adapter_init()
>> dvb_usbv2_adapter_frontend_init()
>> props->frontend_attach()
>>
>> props->init()
>>
>> Since mxl111sf_frontend_attach_atsc_mh() calls mxl111sf_ctrl_msg()
>> internally we need to initialize state->msg_lock in it to make lockdep
>> happy.
>
> What about the other frontends like mxl111sf_frontend_attach_dvbt? They
> no longer initialize the mutex.
>
Good point. I see, that all other frontends also call
mxl111sf_ctrl_msg() inside ->frontend_attach() call.
I think, that fixing dvb-usb core is not good idea, so, I will add
mutex_init() call inside all frontends, which use mxl111sf_init().
What do you think about it?
With regards,
Pavel Skripkin
Powered by blists - more mailing lists