On Wed, 28 Oct, at 09:12:27AM, Saurabh Sengar wrote:
> replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC, as code while holding a spinlock
> should be atomic
> GFP_KERNEL may sleep and can cause deadlock, where as GFP_ATOMIC may
> fail but certainly avoids deadlock
> 
> Signed-off-by: Saurabh Sengar <saurabh.tr...@gmail.com>
> ---
>  drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c | 12 +++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c b/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c
> index 70a0fb1..d4eeebf 100644
> --- a/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c
> +++ b/drivers/firmware/efi/vars.c
> @@ -322,10 +322,11 @@ static unsigned long var_name_strnsize(efi_char16_t 
> *variable_name,
>   * disable the sysfs workqueue since the firmware is buggy.
>   */
>  static void dup_variable_bug(efi_char16_t *str16, efi_guid_t *vendor_guid,
> -                          unsigned long len16)
> +                          unsigned long len16, bool atomic)
>  {
>       size_t i, len8 = len16 / sizeof(efi_char16_t);
>       char *str8;
> +     int gfp_mask;
>  
>       /*
>        * Disable the workqueue since the algorithm it uses for
> @@ -334,7 +335,12 @@ static void dup_variable_bug(efi_char16_t *str16, 
> efi_guid_t *vendor_guid,
>        */
>       efivar_wq_enabled = false;
>  
> -     str8 = kzalloc(len8, GFP_KERNEL);
> +     if (atomic)
> +             gfp_mask = GFP_ATOMIC;
> +     else
> +             gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL;
> +
> +     str8 = kzalloc(len8, gfp_mask);
>       if (!str8)
>               return;
>  
> @@ -408,7 +414,7 @@ int efivar_init(int (*func)(efi_char16_t *, efi_guid_t, 
> unsigned long, void *),
>                       if (duplicates &&
>                           variable_is_present(variable_name, &vendor_guid, 
> head)) {
>                               dup_variable_bug(variable_name, &vendor_guid,
> -                                              variable_name_size);
> +                                              variable_name_size, atomic);
>                               if (!atomic)
>                                       spin_lock_irq(&__efivars->lock);

It's slightly winding code, but if you look at the callers of
efivar_init() you'll see that none of them set both 'atomic' and
'duplicates', so dup_variable_bug() will never be called while holding
a spinlock.

Or am I missing something?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Reply via email to