From: Fabien DESSENNE <fabien.dessenne@st.com>
To: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>,
"mchehab@kernel.org" <mchehab@kernel.org>
Cc: "linux-media@vger.kernel.org" <linux-media@vger.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] media: sti: bdisp: fix a possible sleep-in-atomic-context bug in bdisp_device_run()
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 09:14:20 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <52df5013-3188-d27c-7ad7-e05cd4912a3d@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <705a5381-4edd-211e-9602-78a2b4b67ea9@st.com>
And calling readl_poll_timeout_atomic() would probably be better :)
On 19/12/2019 10:01 AM, Fabien DESSENNE wrote:
> Hi Jia_Ju,
>
>
> This is a good finding. See my remarks below.
>
>
> On 18/12/2019 3:05 PM, Jia-Ju Bai wrote:
>> The driver may sleep while holding a spinlock.
>> The function call path (from bottom to top) in Linux 4.19 is:
>>
>> drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-hw.c, 385:
>> msleep in bdisp_hw_reset
>> drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-v4l2.c, 341:
>> bdisp_hw_reset in bdisp_device_run
>> drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-v4l2.c, 317:
>> _raw_spin_lock_irqsave in bdisp_device_run
>>
>> To fix this bug, msleep() is replaced with mdelay().
>>
>> This bug is found by a static analysis tool STCheck written by myself.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jia-Ju Bai <baijiaju1990@gmail.com>
>> ---
>> drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-hw.c | 2 +-
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-hw.c
>> b/drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-hw.c
>> index 4372abbb5950..1a56348805a2 100644
>> --- a/drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-hw.c
>> +++ b/drivers/media/platform/sti/bdisp/bdisp-hw.c
>> @@ -382,7 +382,7 @@ int bdisp_hw_reset(struct bdisp_dev *bdisp)
>> for (i = 0; i < POLL_RST_MAX; i++) {
>> if (readl(bdisp->regs + BLT_STA1) & BLT_STA1_IDLE)
>> break;
>> - msleep(POLL_RST_DELAY_MS);
>> + mdelay(POLL_RST_DELAY_MS);
>
> In general, use of mdelay is discouraged. Here we can use udelay
> instead of, with a max value of MAX_UDELAY_MS which is 2 on ARM.
>
> So, instead of running 50 (POLL_RST_MAX) times a 20ms
> (POLL_RST_DELAY_MS) delay, we can run 500 times a 2ms (2000us) delay.
>
> The following changes shall be fine:
>
> POLL_RST_MAX 50 --> 500
>
> POLL_RST_DELAY_MS 20 --> 2
>
> mdelay(POLL_RST_DELAY_MS) --> udelay(POLL_RST_DELAY_MS * 1000)
>
>
> BR
>
> Fabien
>
>
>> }
>> if (i == POLL_RST_MAX)
>> dev_err(bdisp->dev, "Reset timeout\n");
prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-12-19 9:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-12-18 14:05 Jia-Ju Bai
2019-12-19 9:01 ` Fabien DESSENNE
2019-12-19 9:14 ` Fabien DESSENNE [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=52df5013-3188-d27c-7ad7-e05cd4912a3d@st.com \
--to=fabien.dessenne@st.com \
--cc=baijiaju1990@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-media@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mchehab@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®