On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 11:07:21AM +0300, Dmitry Torokhov wrote: > On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 8:58 AM Todd Poynor <toddpoy...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > From: Todd Poynor <toddpoy...@google.com> > > > > g_mutex held across pci_unregister_driver() call, also held in > > gasket_pci_remove(), which deadlocks. > > > > Reported-by: Dmitry Torokhov <d...@chromium.org> > > Signed-off-by: Zhongze Hu <fran...@chromium.org> > > Signed-off-by: Todd Poynor <toddpoy...@google.com> > > --- > > drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c | 7 ++----- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c > > b/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c > > index 3bdf7d36b397..6d240dc59557 100644 > > --- a/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c > > +++ b/drivers/staging/gasket/gasket_core.c > > @@ -668,13 +668,10 @@ static void gasket_pci_remove(struct pci_dev *pci_dev) > > struct gasket_dev *gasket_dev = NULL; > > const struct gasket_driver_desc *driver_desc; > > /* Find the device desc. */ > > - mutex_lock(&g_mutex); > > + __must_hold(&g_mutex); > > And what exactly ensures that mutex is held here? Yes, we are holding > the mutex when we unload the driver, but PCI hot-unplug or unbinding > the device though sysfs do not go through module unload code path, so > you'll end up here without holding the mutex.
Which is a huge reason the whole "wrap the pci core calls" is not going to work here at all. The device ownership rules are all wonky because of this. Unwinding that is key to getting all of this right. thanks, greg k-h _______________________________________________ devel mailing list de...@linuxdriverproject.org http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
