Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 9 May 2018 16:50:35 +0200 | From | Greg Kroah-Hartman <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: amba: Fix race condition with driver_override |
| |
On Wed, May 09, 2018 at 03:32:16PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux > <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:45:49AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman > >> >> >> <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:21:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > >> >> >> >> The driver_override implementation is susceptible to a race condition > >> >> >> >> when different threads are reading vs storing a different driver > >> >> >> >> override. Add locking to avoid this race condition. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Cfr. commits 6265539776a0810b ("driver core: platform: fix race > >> >> >> >> condition with driver_override") and 9561475db680f714 ("PCI: Fix race > >> >> >> >> condition with driver_override"). > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Fixes: 3cf385713460eb2b ("ARM: 8256/1: driver coamba: add device binding path 'driver_override'") > >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@glider.be> > >> >> >> >> Reviewed-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@google.com> > >> >> >> >> Cc: stable <stable@vger.kernel.org> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > As this should go to stable kernels, I've fixed it up to apply without > >> >> >> > patch 1 as that's not a real "fix" that anyone needs... > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Please try to remember to put fixes first, and then "trivial" things > >> >> >> > later on in a series. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I did it on purpose, as the fix is much more ugly without patch 1 applied. > >> >> >> Can't you just take patch 1, too? More consistency is always nice, even for > >> >> >> stable ;-) > >> >> > > >> >> > Consistency is nice, but when you have bug fixes that rely on "trivial" > >> >> > patches, it's usually not nice :( > >> >> > > >> >> > I already committed patch 2 to my tree without 1, so let's leave it > >> >> > as-is for now. > >> >> > >> >> Unfortunately the version you committed is buggy: the race condition > >> >> also covers the NULL check removed by the trivial patch you skipped, > >> >> so now you can get inconsistent behavior (no output or "(null)") on the > >> >> same running kernel version... > >> >> > >> >> Please revert and apply both. Thanks! > >> > > >> > Ugh, you are right, sorry about that. > >> > > >> > I've reverted the offending patch, and added them in the correct order > >> > now, I should have listened to you :) > >> > >> Np, issue detected and fixed. > >> Thanks! > > > > So what about the patches you submitted to the patch system - should > > I pick those up or not? > > I think only the 4th patch (#8759) in the series is still applicable. > > > Please don't ask other maintainers to take patches that have been > > submitted to the patch system without first changing their status, > > they're liable to get applied anyway. > > They got picked up by Greg, on request of a third party who wanted them in > -stable ASAP. Not much I can do to prevent that. > Especially with an "Odd Fixes" maintainership status.
I was going to pick up the last one if needed and put it through my tree, as it's still in my queue.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |