* H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> [180614 12:15]: > Hi Tony, > > > Am 14.06.2018 um 14:01 schrieb Tony Lindgren <t...@atomide.com>: > > > > * H. Nikolaus Schaller <h...@goldelico.com> [180613 12:41]: > >> > >> Now if I look into pinctrl_generic_add_group() and > >> pinctrl_generic_get_group_name(), > >> pctldev->num_groups++ is not protected if pinctrl_generic_add_group() may > >> be called by > >> two threads in parallel for the same pctldev. Hence a second thread may > >> try to insert > >> a different node into the radix tree at the same selector index. This > >> fails but there > >> is no error check - and the second entry is completely missing (but > >> probably assumed to > >> be there). > > > > Sounds like pinctrl-single.c is missing mutex around calls to > > pinctrl_generic_add_group()? > > Yes, that could be. I didn't research the call path, just the one of > devm_pinctrl_get(). That uses a mutex in
In addition to missing mutex lock around the generic pinctrl functions we also have racy helpers pinctrl_generic_remove_last_group() and pinmux_generic_remove_last_function() like you pointed out. I'll post a patch for you later on today to test. Regards, Tony
