4.4-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
[ Upstream commit 4c127fd16e6b33ecb7badc091480c84ea9aebeb6 ]
Right now, if stm device removal has to unbind from a policy (that is,
an stm device that has STP policy, gets removed), it will trigger a
nested lock on the stm device's policy mutex.
This patch fixes the problem by moving the locking from the policy
unbinding to policy removal (configfs path), where it's actually needed;
the other caller of the policy unbinding function already takes the
mutex around the call.
Signed-off-by: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c | 18 +++++++++++++++---
1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c b/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c
index 11ab6d01adf6..94d3abfb737a 100644
--- a/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c
+++ b/drivers/hwtracing/stm/policy.c
@@ -272,13 +272,17 @@ void stp_policy_unbind(struct stp_policy *policy)
{
struct stm_device *stm = policy->stm;
+ /*
+ * stp_policy_release() will not call here if the policy is already
+ * unbound; other users should not either, as no link exists between
+ * this policy and anything else in that case
+ */
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(!policy->stm))
return;
- mutex_lock(&stm->policy_mutex);
- stm->policy = NULL;
- mutex_unlock(&stm->policy_mutex);
+ lockdep_assert_held(&stm->policy_mutex);
+ stm->policy = NULL;
policy->stm = NULL;
stm_put_device(stm);
@@ -287,8 +291,16 @@ void stp_policy_unbind(struct stp_policy *policy)
static void stp_policy_release(struct config_item *item)
{
struct stp_policy *policy = to_stp_policy(item);
+ struct stm_device *stm = policy->stm;
+ /* a policy *can* be unbound and still exist in configfs tree */
+ if (!stm)
+ return;
+
+ mutex_lock(&stm->policy_mutex);
stp_policy_unbind(policy);
+ mutex_unlock(&stm->policy_mutex);
+
kfree(policy);
}
--
2.19.1
