Re: [PATCH v2 2/4] ARM: amba: Fix race condition with driver_override

[Geert Uytterhoeven]

Hi Russell,

On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 12:39 PM, Russell King - ARM Linux
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:45:49AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 10:35 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 09:40:08AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> > On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 07:53:06PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> >> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 6:06 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman
>> >> >> <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >> >> > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 03:21:44PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> >> >> >> The driver_override implementation is susceptible to a race condition
>> >> >> >> when different threads are reading vs storing a different driver
>> >> >> >> override.  Add locking to avoid this race condition.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Cfr. commits 6265539776a0810b ("driver core: platform: fix race
>> >> >> >> condition with driver_override") and 9561475db680f714 ("PCI: Fix race
>> >> >> >> condition with driver_override").
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Fixes: 3cf385713460eb2b ("ARM: 8256/1: driver coamba: add device binding path 'driver_override'")
>> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert+renesas@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> Reviewed-by: Todd Kjos <tkjos@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >> >> Cc: stable <stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > As this should go to stable kernels, I've fixed it up to apply without
>> >> >> > patch 1 as that's not a real "fix" that anyone needs...
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Please try to remember to put fixes first, and then "trivial" things
>> >> >> > later on in a series.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I did it on purpose, as the fix is much more ugly without patch 1 applied.
>> >> >> Can't you just take patch 1, too? More consistency is always nice, even for
>> >> >> stable ;-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Consistency is nice, but when you have bug fixes that rely on "trivial"
>> >> > patches, it's usually not nice :(
>> >> >
>> >> > I already committed patch 2 to my tree without 1, so let's leave it
>> >> > as-is for now.
>> >>
>> >> Unfortunately the version you committed is buggy: the race condition
>> >> also covers the NULL check removed by the trivial patch you skipped,
>> >> so now you can get inconsistent behavior (no output or "(null)") on the
>> >> same running kernel version...
>> >>
>> >> Please revert and apply both. Thanks!
>> >
>> > Ugh, you are right, sorry about that.
>> >
>> > I've reverted the offending patch, and added them in the correct order
>> > now, I should have listened to you :)
>>
>> Np, issue detected and fixed.
>> Thanks!
>
> So what about the patches you submitted to the patch system - should
> I pick those up or not?

I think only the 4th patch (#8759) in the series is still applicable.

> Please don't ask other maintainers to take patches that have been
> submitted to the patch system without first changing their status,
> they're liable to get applied anyway.

They got picked up by Greg, on request of a third party who wanted them in
-stable ASAP. Not much I can do to prevent that.
Especially with an "Odd Fixes" maintainership status.

I tried to change the status of the patches Greg applied, but it failed:

    Your request to update the patch failed because:
    An internal state error was detected.

Gr{oetje,eeting}s,

                        Geert

-- 
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
                                -- Linus Torvalds