:100000000105D4F953E9FF17035338FF20040FC04B
:1000100002002102060315390401416C6C69656414
:100020002054656C657369732C4B2E4B00457468C6
:1000300065726E6574204C414E20436172640043CA
:10004000656E747265434F4D004C412D50434D0019
:10005000FF1A0602100000020B1B08810108E06075
:1000600000021F1B08820108E06020021F1B08839A
:100070000108E06040021F1B08840108E060600284
:100080001F1B08850108E06080021F1B088601080D
:10009000E060A0021F1B08870108E060C0021F1B70
:1000A00008880108E060E0021F1B08890108E06081
:1000B00000031F1B088A0108E06020031F1B088B38
:1000C0000108E06040031F1B088C0108E06060032A
:1000D0001F1B088D0108E06080031F1B088E0108AC
:1000E000E060A0031F1B088F0108E060C0031F1B16
:0D00F00008900108E060E0031F1400FF000D
:00000001FF
#
# Replacement CIS for Allied Telesis LA-PCM
#
lass='main'>index : net-next.git
dmaengine: pl330: fix double lock
The static bug finder EBA (http://www.iagoabal.eu/eba/) reported the
following double-lock bug:
Double lock:
1. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at pl330_free_chan_resources:2236;
2. call to function `pl330_release_channel' immediately after;
3. call to function `dma_pl330_rqcb' in line 1753;
4. spin_lock_irqsave(pch->lock, flags) at dma_pl330_rqcb:1505.
I have fixed it as suggested by Marek Szyprowski.
First, I have replaced `pch->lock' with `pl330->lock' in functions
`pl330_alloc_chan_resources' and `pl330_free_chan_resources'. This avoids
the double-lock by acquiring a different lock than `dma_pl330_rqcb'.
NOTE that, as a result, `pl330_free_chan_resources' executes
`list_splice_tail_init' on `pch->work_list' under lock `pl330->lock',
whereas in the rest of the code `pch->work_list' is protected by
`pch->lock'. I don't know if this may cause race conditions. Similarly
`pch->cyclic' is written by `pl330_alloc_chan_resources' under
`pl330->lock' but read by `pl330_tx_submit' under `pch->lock'.
Second, I have removed locking from `pl330_request_channel' and
`pl330_release_channel' functions. Function `pl330_request_channel' is
only called from `pl330_alloc_chan_resources', so the lock is already
held. Function `pl330_release_channel' is called from
`pl330_free_chan_resources', which already holds the lock, and from
`pl330_del'. Function `pl330_del' is called in an error path of
`pl330_probe' and at the end of `pl330_remove', but I assume that there
cannot be concurrent accesses to the protected data at those points.
Signed-off-by: Iago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu>
Reviewed-by: Marek Szyprowski <m.szyprowski@samsung.com>
Signed-off-by: Vinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>