[Letux-kernel] BUG: drivers/pinctrl/core: races in pinctrl_groups and deferred probing
tony at atomide.com
Tue Jun 19 06:34:08 CEST 2018
* H. Nikolaus Schaller <hns at goldelico.com> [180618 18:33]:
> >> So code just needs group cleanup on failed probing and fixing the mutex around pinctrl_generic_add_group().
> >> I think we need the mutex because a race still can happen when create_pinctrl() is calling pcs_dt_node_to_map()
> >> and pinctrl_generic_add_group() w/o being locked on pinctrl_maps_mutex.
> >> The race I suspect is that two drivers are trying to insert the same name and may come
> >> both to the conclusion that it does not yet exist. And both insert into the radix tree.
> >> The window of risk is small though... It is in pinctrl_generic_add_group() between calling
> >> pinctrl_generic_group_name_to_selector() and radix_tree_insert() so we probably won't
> >> see it in real hardware tests.
> > Hmm but that race should be already fixed with mutex held
> > by the pin controller drivers with these fixes? Or am I
> > missing something still?
> Hm. Maybe we refer to a different mutex?
Yes I think that's the case, you're talking about a different
mutex here :)
> I had seen the call sequence
> create_pinctrl()-> pinctrl_dt_to_map() -> pcs_dt_node_to_map() -> pinctrl_generic_add_group()
> w/o any lock inside.
> There is a mutex_lock(&pinctrl_maps_mutex); in create_pinctrl(), but locked after that.
> Or is there a lock outside of create_pinctrl()?
> If I look into the stack dumps, call nesting is
> driver_probe_device() -> pinctrl_bind_pins() -> devm_pinctrl_get() -> create_pinctrl()
> They all do no locking.
> Maybe I am missing something.
Can you please post a patch for that as you already have it
debugged? That's easier to understand than reading a verbal
More information about the Letux-kernel