Skip to content
GitLab
  1. Dec 24, 2010
    • David Howells's avatar
      KEYS: Don't call up_write() if __key_link_begin() returns an error · 3fc5e98d
      David Howells authored 
      

In construct_alloc_key(), up_write() is called in the error path if
__key_link_begin() fails, but this is incorrect as __key_link_begin() only
returns with the nominated keyring locked if it returns successfully.

Without this patch, you might see the following in dmesg:

	=====================================
	[ BUG: bad unlock balance detected! ]
	-------------------------------------
	mount.cifs/5769 is trying to release lock (&key->sem) at:
	[<ffffffff81201159>] request_key_and_link+0x263/0x3fc
	but there are no more locks to release!

	other info that might help us debug this:
	3 locks held by mount.cifs/5769:
	 #0:  (&type->s_umount_key#41/1){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81131321>] sget+0x278/0x3e7
	 #1:  (&ret_buf->session_mutex){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa0258e59>] cifs_get_smb_ses+0x35a/0x443 [cifs]
	 #2:  (root_key_user.cons_lock){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81201000>] request_key_and_link+0x10a/0x3fc

	stack backtrace:
	Pid: 5769, comm: mount.cifs Not tainted 2.6.37-rc6+ #1
	Call Trace:
	 [<ffffffff81201159>] ? request_key_and_link+0x263/0x3fc
	 [<ffffffff81081601>] print_unlock_inbalance_bug+0xca/0xd5
	 [<ffffffff81083248>] lock_release_non_nested+0xc1/0x263
	 [<ffffffff81201159>] ? request_key_and_link+0x263/0x3fc
	 [<ffffffff81201159>] ? request_key_and_link+0x263/0x3fc
	 [<ffffffff81083567>] lock_release+0x17d/0x1a4
	 [<ffffffff81073f45>] up_write+0x23/0x3b
	 [<ffffffff81201159>] request_key_and_link+0x263/0x3fc
	 [<ffffffffa026fe9e>] ? cifs_get_spnego_key+0x61/0x21f [cifs]
	 [<ffffffff812013c5>] request_key+0x41/0x74
	 [<ffffffffa027003d>] cifs_get_spnego_key+0x200/0x21f [cifs]
	 [<ffffffffa026e296>] CIFS_SessSetup+0x55d/0x1273 [cifs]
	 [<ffffffffa02589e1>] cifs_setup_session+0x90/0x1ae [cifs]
	 [<ffffffffa0258e7e>] cifs_get_smb_ses+0x37f/0x443 [cifs]
	 [<ffffffffa025a9e3>] cifs_mount+0x1aa1/0x23f3 [cifs]
	 [<ffffffff8111fd94>] ? alloc_debug_processing+0xdb/0x120
	 [<ffffffffa027002c>] ? cifs_get_spnego_key+0x1ef/0x21f [cifs]
	 [<ffffffffa024cc71>] cifs_do_mount+0x165/0x2b3 [cifs]
	 [<ffffffff81130e72>] vfs_kern_mount+0xaf/0x1dc
	 [<ffffffff81131007>] do_kern_mount+0x4d/0xef
	 [<ffffffff811483b9>] do_mount+0x6f4/0x733
	 [<ffffffff8114861f>] sys_mount+0x88/0xc2
	 [<ffffffff8100ac42>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b

Reported-by: default avatarJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarDavid Howells <dhowells@redhat.com>
Reviewed-and-Tested-by: default avatarJeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      3fc5e98d
    • Andres Salomon's avatar
      cs5535-gpio: handle GPIO regs where higher (clear) bits are set · 44658a11
      Andres Salomon authored 
      

The default for non-READ_BACK GPIO regs is to have the clear bits set;
this means that our original errata fix was too simplistic.  This
changes it to the following behavior:

 - when setting GPIOs, ignore the higher order bits (they're for
   clearing, we don't need to care about them).

 - when clearing GPIOs, keep all the bits, but unset (via XOR) the
   lower order bit that negates the clear bit that we care about.  That
   is, if we're clearing GPIO 26 (val = 0x04000000), we first XOR what's
   currently in the register with 0x0400 (GPIO 26's SET bit), and then
   OR that with the GPIO 26's CLEAR bit.

Tested-by: default avatarDaniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      44658a11
    • Andres Salomon's avatar
      cs5535-gpio: don't apply errata #36 to edge detect GPIOs · 00185165
      Andres Salomon authored 
      

The edge detect status GPIOs function differently from the other atomic
model CS5536 GPIO registers; writing 1 to the high bits clears the GPIO,
but writing 1 to the lower bits also clears the bit.

This means that read-modify-write doesn't actually work for it, so don't
apply the errata here.  If a negative edge status gets lost after
resume..  well, we tried our best!

Tested-by: default avatarDaniel Drake <dsd@laptop.org>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAndres Salomon <dilinger@queued.net>
Signed-off-by: default avatarLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      00185165
  3. Dec 23, 2010
  5. Dec 22, 2010
  7. Dec 21, 2010