[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <199a52ed-59d0-4651-b361-3b3d0692a2bf@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp>
Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2024 20:08:58 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzysztof.kozlowski@...aro.org>,
Edward Adam Davis <eadavis@...com>,
syzbot+2b131f51bb4af224ab40@...kaller.appspotmail.com
Cc: davem@...emloft.net, edumazet@...gle.com, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
hdanton@...a.com, kuba@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, pabeni@...hat.com, stern@...land.harvard.edu,
syzkaller-bugs@...glegroups.com, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] nfc/nci: fix task hung in nfc_targets_found
On 2024/01/15 18:36, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> diff --git a/net/nfc/nci/core.c b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
>> index 6c9592d05120..9a277228a875 100644
>> --- a/net/nfc/nci/core.c
>> +++ b/net/nfc/nci/core.c
>> @@ -145,6 +145,8 @@ inline int nci_request(struct nci_dev *ndev,
>> {
>> int rc;
>>
>> + if (test_bit(NCI_UNREG, &ndev->flags))
>> + return -ENODEV;
>
> nci_close_device() clears the NCI_UP, which is tested here, just after
> acquiring mutex. And there is explicit comment about it just below your
> code. Why it is not relevant?
Because the deadlock happens at mutex_lock(&ndev->req_lock), which is
before test_bit(NCI_UP, &ndev->flags) is called. Please see
https://lkml.kernel.org/r/d314e471-0251-461e-988d-70add0c6ebf6@I-love.SAKURA.ne.jp .
>
> Your code looks really unnecessary, at least with that code flow from
> commit msg. Especially considering you do it outside of mutex, so how
> does it solve anything?
>
> Best regards,
> Krzysztof
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists