On 2016-04-06 03:48 AM, Julian Calaby wrote:
> Hi Bastien,
>
> On Wed, Apr 6, 2016 at 7:19 AM, Bastien Philbert
> <bastienphilb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This fixes backwards locking in the function __csio_unreg_rnode to
>> properly lock before the call to the function csio_unreg_rnode and
>> not unlock with spin_unlock_irq as this would not allow the proper
>> protection for concurrent access on the shared csio_hw structure
>> pointer hw. In addition switch the locking after the critical region
>> function call to properly unlock instead with spin_unlock_irq on
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bastien Philbert <bastienphilb...@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c
>> b/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c
>> index e9c3b04..029a09e 100644
>> --- a/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c
>> +++ b/drivers/scsi/csiostor/csio_rnode.c
>> @@ -580,9 +580,9 @@ __csio_unreg_rnode(struct csio_rnode *rn)
>> ln->last_scan_ntgts--;
>> }
>>
>> - spin_unlock_irq(&hw->lock);
>> - csio_unreg_rnode(rn);
>> spin_lock_irq(&hw->lock);
>> + csio_unreg_rnode(rn);
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&hw->lock);
>
> Are you _certain_ this is correct? This construct usually appears when
> a function has a particular lock held, then needs to unlock it to call
> some other function. Are you _certain_ that this isn't the case?
>
> Thanks,
>
Yes I am pretty certain this is correct. I checked the paths that called this
function
and it was weired that none of them gradded the spinlock before hand.
Cheers,
Bastien
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-scsi" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
