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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <356c24cf-625b-eea2-2c04-ce132d881cac@gmail.com>
Date:   Sat, 2 Apr 2022 22:47:27 +0200
From:   Michael Straube <straube.linux@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>,
        Phillip Potter <phil@...lpotter.co.uk>,
        "open list:STAGING SUBSYSTEM" <linux-staging@...ts.linux.dev>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        straube.linux@...il.com
Subject: staging: r8188eu: how to handle nested mutex under spinlock

Hi all,

smatch reported a sleeping in atomic context.

rtw_set_802_11_disassociate() <- disables preempt
-> _rtw_pwr_wakeup()
    -> ips_leave()

rtw_set_802_11_disassociate() takes a spinlock and ips_leave() uses a
mutex.

I'm fairly new to the locking stuff, but as far as I know this is not a
false positive since mutex can sleep, but that's not allowed under a
spinlock.

What is the best way to handle this?
I'm not sure if converting the mutex to a spinlock (including all the
other places where the mutex is used) is the right thing to do?

thanks,
Michael

Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Powered by Openwall GNU/*/Linux Powered by OpenVZ