From 063773011d33bb36588a90385aa9eb75d13c6d80 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Charles Keepax Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2019 16:32:18 +0100 Subject: regulator: core: Avoid potential deadlock on regulator_unregister Lockdep reports the following issue on my setup: Possible unsafe locking scenario: CPU0 CPU1 ---- ---- lock((work_completion)(&(&rdev->disable_work)->work)); lock(regulator_list_mutex); lock((work_completion)(&(&rdev->disable_work)->work)); lock(regulator_list_mutex); The problem is that regulator_unregister takes the regulator_list_mutex and then calls flush_work on disable_work. But regulator_disable_work calls regulator_lock_dependent which will also take the regulator_list_mutex. Resulting in a deadlock if the flush_work call actually needs to flush the work. Fix this issue by moving the flush_work outside of the regulator_list_mutex. The list mutex is not used to guard the point at which the delayed work is queued, so its use adds no additional safety. Fixes: f8702f9e4aa7 ("regulator: core: Use ww_mutex for regulators locking") Signed-off-by: Charles Keepax Reviewed-by: Dmitry Osipenko Signed-off-by: Mark Brown --- drivers/regulator/core.c | 3 ++- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) (limited to 'drivers') diff --git a/drivers/regulator/core.c b/drivers/regulator/core.c index 968dcd9d7a07..8573dd0871fd 100644 --- a/drivers/regulator/core.c +++ b/drivers/regulator/core.c @@ -5061,10 +5061,11 @@ void regulator_unregister(struct regulator_dev *rdev) regulator_put(rdev->supply); } + flush_work(&rdev->disable_work.work); + mutex_lock(®ulator_list_mutex); debugfs_remove_recursive(rdev->debugfs); - flush_work(&rdev->disable_work.work); WARN_ON(rdev->open_count); regulator_remove_coupling(rdev); unset_regulator_supplies(rdev); -- cgit v1.2.3