On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:58:18PM -0400, ira. weiny wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:32:29AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > hfi1_ioctl() contains many calls to might sleep functions with
> > dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock spinlock held (for example, access_ok,
> >
On Fri, Oct 30, 2015 at 07:58:18PM -0400, ira. weiny wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:32:29AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > hfi1_ioctl() contains many calls to might sleep functions with
> > dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock spinlock held (for example, access_ok,
> >
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:32:29AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> hfi1_ioctl() contains many calls to might sleep functions with
> dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock spinlock held (for example, access_ok,
> copy_from_user, kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL), etc.).
>
> Should dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock be
Hello,
hfi1_ioctl() contains many calls to might sleep functions with
dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock spinlock held (for example, access_ok,
copy_from_user, kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL), etc.).
Should dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock be acquired just before updating state?
Found by Linux Driver Verification project
On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 12:32:29AM +0300, Alexey Khoroshilov wrote:
> Hello,
>
> hfi1_ioctl() contains many calls to might sleep functions with
> dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock spinlock held (for example, access_ok,
> copy_from_user, kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL), etc.).
>
> Should dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock be
Hello,
hfi1_ioctl() contains many calls to might sleep functions with
dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock spinlock held (for example, access_ok,
copy_from_user, kzalloc(GFP_KERNEL), etc.).
Should dd->hfi1_snoop.snoop_lock be acquired just before updating state?
Found by Linux Driver Verification project
6 matches
Mail list logo