From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com (Lorenzo Pieralisi) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:48:10 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: Add missing destroy_timer_on_stack() In-Reply-To: References: <1508857353-3602-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> Message-ID: <20171030094810.GA14561@red-moon> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > wrote: > > The PSCI checker suspend_test_thread() function (ie executed for the > > suspend test) requires an on-stack timer to carry out the test it > > executes; it sets it up through the setup_timer_on_stack() API. > > > > setup_timer_on_stack() requires its counterpart destroy_timer_on_stack() > > to be called when the timer is disposed of but the PSCI checker code is > > currently missing that call, leaving the timer object in an incosistent > > state when the PSCI checker stops the thread executing the suspend > > test. > > > > Add the missing destroy_timer_on_stack() call to fix the omission. > > > > Fixes: ea8b1c4a6019 ("drivers: psci: PSCI checker module") > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi > > Reported-by: Kees Cook > > Cc: Kees Cook > > Cc: Mark Rutland > > Hi Lorenzo, > > You addressed the patch 'To: arm at kernel.org', but I'm not entirely > sure what to do with it, it would be nice to be a little more explicit whether > you want us to apply the patch directly or just review it, and which trees > you want it to get merged into. Yes, I was about to reply to you - I should have added some comments to the patch itself, apologies. > As you are fixing a regression against v4.10, I would assume you want > it merged into v4.14 with a 'cc: stable' tag to have it backported into v4.13, > correct? Yes it is correct - since the PSCI checker went through ARM SoC I expect fixes to go through ARM SoC too please (but I should have mentioned the summary you correctly wrote up above myself). Thanks, Lorenzo From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932438AbdJ3JsE (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 05:48:04 -0400 Received: from foss.arm.com ([217.140.101.70]:49890 "EHLO foss.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752170AbdJ3JsD (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Oct 2017 05:48:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2017 09:48:10 +0000 From: Lorenzo Pieralisi To: Arnd Bergmann Cc: arm-soc , Linux ARM , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Kees Cook , Mark Rutland Subject: Re: [PATCH] drivers/firmware: psci_checker: Add missing destroy_timer_on_stack() Message-ID: <20171030094810.GA14561@red-moon> References: <1508857353-3602-1-git-send-email-lorenzo.pieralisi@arm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 10:17:54AM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 5:02 PM, Lorenzo Pieralisi > wrote: > > The PSCI checker suspend_test_thread() function (ie executed for the > > suspend test) requires an on-stack timer to carry out the test it > > executes; it sets it up through the setup_timer_on_stack() API. > > > > setup_timer_on_stack() requires its counterpart destroy_timer_on_stack() > > to be called when the timer is disposed of but the PSCI checker code is > > currently missing that call, leaving the timer object in an incosistent > > state when the PSCI checker stops the thread executing the suspend > > test. > > > > Add the missing destroy_timer_on_stack() call to fix the omission. > > > > Fixes: ea8b1c4a6019 ("drivers: psci: PSCI checker module") > > Signed-off-by: Lorenzo Pieralisi > > Reported-by: Kees Cook > > Cc: Kees Cook > > Cc: Mark Rutland > > Hi Lorenzo, > > You addressed the patch 'To: arm@kernel.org', but I'm not entirely > sure what to do with it, it would be nice to be a little more explicit whether > you want us to apply the patch directly or just review it, and which trees > you want it to get merged into. Yes, I was about to reply to you - I should have added some comments to the patch itself, apologies. > As you are fixing a regression against v4.10, I would assume you want > it merged into v4.14 with a 'cc: stable' tag to have it backported into v4.13, > correct? Yes it is correct - since the PSCI checker went through ARM SoC I expect fixes to go through ARM SoC too please (but I should have mentioned the summary you correctly wrote up above myself). Thanks, Lorenzo