#undef TRACE_SYSTEM #define TRACE_SYSTEM xdp #if !defined(_TRACE_XDP_H) || defined(TRACE_HEADER_MULTI_READ) #define _TRACE_XDP_H #include #include #include #define __XDP_ACT_MAP(FN) \ FN(ABORTED) \ FN(DROP) \ FN(PASS) \ FN(TX) #define __XDP_ACT_TP_FN(x) \ TRACE_DEFINE_ENUM(XDP_##x); #define __XDP_ACT_SYM_FN(x) \ { XDP_##x, #x }, #define __XDP_ACT_SYM_TAB \ __XDP_ACT_MAP(__XDP_ACT_SYM_FN) { -1, 0 } __XDP_ACT_MAP(__XDP_ACT_TP_FN) TRACE_EVENT(xdp_exception, TP_PROTO(const struct net_device *dev, const struct bpf_prog *xdp, u32 act), TP_ARGS(dev, xdp, act), TP_STRUCT__entry( __string(name, dev->name) __array(u8, prog_tag, 8) __field(u32, act) ), TP_fast_assign( BUILD_BUG_ON(sizeof(__entry->prog_tag) != sizeof(xdp->tag)); memcpy(__entry->prog_tag, xdp->tag, sizeof(xdp->tag)); __assign_str(name, dev->name); __entry->act = act; ), TP_printk("prog=%s device=%s action=%s", __print_hex_str(__entry->prog_tag, 8), __get_str(name), __print_symbolic(__entry->act, __XDP_ACT_SYM_TAB)) ); #endif /* _TRACE_XDP_H */ #include remove' selected='selected'>nds-private-remove net-next plumbingsTobias Klauser
summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/net/unix/af_unix.c
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorIago Abal <mail@iagoabal.eu>2017-01-11 14:00:21 +0100
committerVinod Koul <vinod.koul@intel.com>2017-01-25 15:35:11 +0530
commit91539eb1fda2d530d3b268eef542c5414e54bf1a (patch)
tree960f5ca6342ad20837aff18aad6e8ecd7da32fd6 /net/unix/af_unix.c
parent6610d0edf6dc7ee97e46ab3a538a565c79d26199 (diff)
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>
Diffstat (limited to 'net/unix/af_unix.c')