um: line: Don't free winch (with IRQ) under spinlock

Lockdep correctly complains that one shouldn't call um_free_irq()
with free_irq() inside under a spinlock since that will attempt
to acquire a mutex.

Rearrange the code to keep the list manipulations under the lock
while moving the actual freeing outside of it, to avoid this.

In particular, this removes the lockdep complaint at shutdown that
I was seeing with lockdep enabled.

Signed-off-by: Johannes Berg <johannes.berg@intel.com>
Acked-By: anton.ivanov@cambridgegreys.com
Signed-off-by: Richard Weinberger <richard@nod.at>

1 files changed, 8 insertions, 4 deletions

diff --git a/arch/um/drivers/line.c b/arch/um/drivers/line.c
index 14ad9f495fe6..77ce63a57070 100644
--- a/arch/um/drivers/line.c
+++ b/arch/um/drivers/line.c
@@ -608,7 +608,6 @@ static void free_winch(struct winch *winch)
 	winch->fd = -1;
 	if (fd != -1)
 		os_close_file(fd);
-	list_del(&winch->list);
 	__free_winch(&winch->work);
 }
 
@@ -709,6 +708,8 @@ static void unregister_winch(struct tty_struct *tty)
 		winch = list_entry(ele, struct winch, list);
 		wtty = tty_port_tty_get(winch->port);
 		if (wtty == tty) {
+			list_del(&winch->list);
+			spin_unlock(&winch_handler_lock);
 			free_winch(winch);
 			break;
 		}
@@ -719,14 +720,17 @@ static void unregister_winch(struct tty_struct *tty)
 
 static void winch_cleanup(void)
 {
-	struct list_head *ele, *next;
 	struct winch *winch;
 
 	spin_lock(&winch_handler_lock);
+	while ((winch = list_first_entry_or_null(&winch_handlers,
+						 struct winch, list))) {
+		list_del(&winch->list);
+		spin_unlock(&winch_handler_lock);
 
-	list_for_each_safe(ele, next, &winch_handlers) {
-		winch = list_entry(ele, struct winch, list);
 		free_winch(winch);
+
+		spin_lock(&winch_handler_lock);
 	}
 
 	spin_unlock(&winch_handler_lock);