Hi Tony, > Am 15.06.2018 um 13:13 schrieb Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com>: > > * Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com> [180615 07:00]: >> * H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> [180614 12:15]: >>> Hi Tony, >>> >>>> Am 14.06.2018 um 14:01 schrieb Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com>: >>>> >>>> * H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> [180613 12:41]: >>>>> >>>>> Now if I look into pinctrl_generic_add_group() and >>>>> pinctrl_generic_get_group_name(), >>>>> pctldev->num_groups++ is not protected if pinctrl_generic_add_group() may >>>>> be called by >>>>> two threads in parallel for the same pctldev. Hence a second thread may >>>>> try to insert >>>>> a different node into the radix tree at the same selector index. This >>>>> fails but there >>>>> is no error check - and the second entry is completely missing (but >>>>> probably assumed to >>>>> be there). >>>> >>>> Sounds like pinctrl-single.c is missing mutex around calls to >>>> pinctrl_generic_add_group()? >>> >>> Yes, that could be. I didn't research the call path, just the one of >>> devm_pinctrl_get(). That uses a mutex in >> >> In addition to missing mutex lock around the generic pinctrl functions >> we also have racy helpers pinctrl_generic_remove_last_group() and >> pinmux_generic_remove_last_function() like you pointed out. I'll post >> a patch for you later on today to test. > > OK I posted a series to fix these issues hopefully as thread > "[PATCH 0/5] pinctrl fixes for generic functions and groups".
Fine, I have located them. > > Can you please test and see if that is enough to fix the issues > you're seeing? Yes, I'll try asap. BR and thanks, Nikolaus
