linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: core: Consistently set mutex_owner when using ww_mutex_lock

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:   Thu, 06 Apr 2023 16:03:41 +0100
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Cc:     Dmitry Osipenko <digetx@...il.com>,
        Lucas Stach <l.stach@...gutronix.de>,
        David Collins <quic_collinsd@...cinc.com>,
        Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>,
        Liam Girdwood <lgirdwood@...il.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 1/2] regulator: core: Consistently set
 mutex_owner when using ww_mutex_lock_slow()

On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:33:53 -0700, Douglas Anderson wrote:
> When a codepath locks a rdev using ww_mutex_lock_slow() directly then
> that codepath is responsible for incrementing the "ref_cnt" and also
> setting the "mutex_owner" to "current".
> 
> The regulator core consistently got that right for "ref_cnt" but
> didn't always get it right for "mutex_owner". Let's fix this.
> 
> [...]

Applied to

   https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/broonie/regulator.git for-next

Thanks!

[1/2] regulator: core: Consistently set mutex_owner when using ww_mutex_lock_slow()
      commit: b83a1772be854f87602de14726737d3e5b06e1f4
[2/2] regulator: core: Avoid lockdep reports when resolving supplies
      commit: cba6cfdc7c3f1516f0d08ddfb24e689af0932573

All being well this means that it will be integrated into the linux-next
tree (usually sometime in the next 24 hours) and sent to Linus during
the next merge window (or sooner if it is a bug fix), however if
problems are discovered then the patch may be dropped or reverted.

You may get further e-mails resulting from automated or manual testing
and review of the tree, please engage with people reporting problems and
send followup patches addressing any issues that are reported if needed.

If any updates are required or you are submitting further changes they
should be sent as incremental updates against current git, existing
patches will not be replaced.

Please add any relevant lists and maintainers to the CCs when replying
to this mail.

Thanks,
Mark