Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] soc: qcom: pdr: protect locator_addr with the main mutex

From: Dmitry Baryshkov <dmitry.baryshkov@linaro.org>
To: Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com>
Cc: Bjorn Andersson <andersson@kernel.org>,
	Konrad Dybcio <konrad.dybcio@linaro.org>,
	 Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@linaro.org>,
	linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org,  linux-remoteproc@vger.kernel.org,
	Johan Hovold <johan+linaro@kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 1/7] soc: qcom: pdr: protect locator_addr with the main mutex
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 02:07:42 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAA8EJppi4q-5ez4F4BvLMkU4UdUD_Rtu58cMj+Gq2udCaf9HzQ@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0fd377a8-281d-634f-014b-509fd8dada98@quicinc.com>

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 at 01:35, Chris Lew <quic_clew@quicinc.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/11/2024 8:34 AM, Dmitry Baryshkov wrote:
> > @@ -133,11 +133,13 @@ static int pdr_register_listener(struct pdr_handle *pdr,
> >       req.enable = enable;
> >       strscpy(req.service_path, pds->service_path, sizeof(req.service_path));
> >
> > +     mutex_lock(&pdr->lock);
> >       ret = qmi_send_request(&pdr->notifier_hdl, &pds->addr,
> >                              &txn, SERVREG_REGISTER_LISTENER_REQ,
> >                              SERVREG_REGISTER_LISTENER_REQ_LEN,
> >                              servreg_register_listener_req_ei,
> >                              &req);
> > +     mutex_unlock(&pdr->lock);
> >       if (ret < 0) {
> >               qmi_txn_cancel(&txn);
> >               return ret;
> >
>
> Hi Dmitry,
>
> What is the reason for taking the pdr lock here? The addr struct passed
> into qmi_send_request is from the pdr_service. I think this is different
> from the pdr_handle we are protecting in the other parts of the patch.

Indeed, we should be taking pdr->list_lock.

-- 
With best wishes
Dmitry