linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] ASoC: mediatek: mt8186: Fix mutex double unlock in GPIO request

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:   Fri, 17 Jun 2022 19:07:09 +0800
From:   Fei Shao <fshao@...omium.org>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Jiaxin Yu <jiaxin.yu@...iatek.com>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "moderated list:ARM/Mediatek SoC support" 
        <linux-mediatek@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ASoC: mediatek: mt8186: Fix mutex double unlock in GPIO request

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 6:43 PM Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 06:06:33PM +0800, Fei Shao wrote:
> > The lockdep mechanism reveals an unbalanced unlocking on MT8186:
> >
> >   [    2.993966] WARNING: bad unlock balance detected!
> >   [    2.993971] 5.15.46-421fef3b44d7-lockdep #16 Not tainted
> >   [    2.993978] -------------------------------------
> >   [    2.993983] kworker/u16:1/10 is trying to release lock (gpio_request_mutex) at:
> >   [    2.993994] [<ffffffdcd9adebf8>] mt8186_afe_gpio_request+0xf8/0x210
> >   [    2.994012] but there are no more locks to release!
> >   [    2.994017]
> >   [    2.994017] other info that might help us debug this:
>
> Please think hard before including complete backtraces in upstream
> reports, they are very large and contain almost no useful information
> relative to their size so often obscure the relevant content in your
> message. If part of the backtrace is usefully illustrative (it often is
> for search engines if nothing else) then it's usually better to pull out
> the relevant sections.

Agreed, I'll resend the patch. Thank you for the feedback.

Regards,
Fei