Messages in this thread | | | From | Dmitry Baryshkov <> | Date | Wed, 3 Apr 2024 06:08:38 +0300 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] soc: qcom: pmic_glink: don't traverse clients list without a lock |
| |
On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 20:56, Andrew Halaney <ahalaney@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 08:07:06PM +0300, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote: > > Take the client_lock before traversing the clients list at the > > pmic_glink_state_notify_clients() function. This is required to keep the > > list traversal safe from concurrent modification. > > > > Fixes: 58ef4ece1e41 ("soc: qcom: pmic_glink: Introduce base PMIC GLINK driver") > > Signed-off-by: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org> > > --- > > drivers/soc/qcom/pmic_glink.c | 2 ++ > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/drivers/soc/qcom/pmic_glink.c b/drivers/soc/qcom/pmic_glink.c > > index f913e9bd57ed..c999358771b3 100644 > > --- a/drivers/soc/qcom/pmic_glink.c > > +++ b/drivers/soc/qcom/pmic_glink.c > > @@ -168,8 +168,10 @@ static void pmic_glink_state_notify_clients(struct pmic_glink *pg) > > } > > Does pmic_glink_rpmsg_callback() deserve similar locking when traversing > the clients list?
True. Will fix in v2.
> > > > > if (new_state != pg->client_state) { > > + mutex_lock(&pg->client_lock); > > list_for_each_entry(client, &pg->clients, node) > > client->pdr_notify(client->priv, new_state); > > + mutex_unlock(&pg->client_lock); > > pg->client_state = new_state; > > } > > } > > > > -- > > 2.39.2 > > > > >
-- With best wishes Dmitry
| |