linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Ensure irqs aren't disabled by rpmh_rsc_send

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Mon, 27 May 2024 22:32:35 -0500
From: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>
To: Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@...aro.org>,
	Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org,
	patches@...ts.linux.dev,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
	Douglas Anderson <dianders@...omium.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Ensure irqs aren't disabled by rpmh_rsc_send_data() callers


On Thu, 09 May 2024 11:41:28 -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote:
> Dan pointed out that Smatch is concerned about this code because it uses
> spin_lock_irqsave() and then calls wait_event_lock_irq() which enables
> irqs before going to sleep. The comment above the function says it
> should be called with interrupts enabled, but we simply hope that's true
> without really confirming that. Let's add a might_sleep() here to
> confirm that interrupts and preemption aren't disabled. Once we do that,
> we can change the lock to be non-saving, spin_lock_irq(), to clarify
> that we don't expect irqs to be disabled. If irqs are disabled by
> callers they're going to be enabled anyway in the wait_event_lock_irq()
> call which would be bad.
> 
> [...]

Applied, thanks!

[1/1] soc: qcom: rpmh-rsc: Ensure irqs aren't disabled by rpmh_rsc_send_data() callers
      commit: e43111f52b9ec5c2d700f89a1d61c8d10dc2d9e9

Best regards,
-- 
Bjorn Andersson <andersson@...nel.org>