> -----Original Message----- > From: Iban Rodriguez [mailto:iban.rodriguez@xxxxxxx] > Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2016 1:47 PM > To: Kershner, David A; Greg Kroah-Hartman; Benjamin Romer; Sell, Timothy > C; Neil Horman > Cc: *S-Par-Maintainer; devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux- > kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Iban Rodriguez > Subject: Staging: unisys/verisonic: Correct double unlock > > 'priv_lock' is unlocked twice. The first one is removed and > the function 'visornic_serverdown_complete' is now called with > 'priv_lock' locked because 'devdata' is modified inside. > > Signed-off-by: Iban Rodriguez <iban.rodriguez@xxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c | 1 - > 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c > b/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c > index be0d057346c3..af03f2938fe9 100644 > --- a/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c > +++ b/drivers/staging/unisys/visornic/visornic_main.c > @@ -368,7 +368,6 @@ visornic_serverdown(struct visornic_devdata > *devdata, > } > devdata->server_change_state = true; > devdata->server_down_complete_func = complete_func; > - spin_unlock_irqrestore(&devdata->priv_lock, flags); > visornic_serverdown_complete(devdata); > } else if (devdata->server_change_state) { > dev_dbg(&devdata->dev->device, "%s changing state\n", I agree there is a bug here involving priv_lock being unlocked twice, but this patch isn't the appropriate fix. Reason is, we can NOT call visornic_serverdown_complete() while holding a spinlock (which is what this patch would cause to occur) because visornic_serverdown_complete() might block when it calls rtnl_lock() in this code sequence (rtnl_lock() grabs a mutex): rtnl_lock(); dev_close(netdev); rtnl_unlock(); Blocking with a spinlock held is always a bad idea. :-( > -- > 1.9.1 _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
