linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Sun, 27 Sep 2015 16:10:48 +0200
From:	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>
To:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
Cc:	linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org,
	Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@...aro.org>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>,
	"open list:NETWORKING DRIVERS (WIRELESS)" 
	<linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org>,
	"moderated list:SOUND - SOC LAYER / DYNAMIC AUDIO POWER MANAGEM..." 
	<alsa-devel@...a-project.org>,
	"open list:TARGET SUBSYSTEM" <linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-doc@...r.kernel.org" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	"open list:ULTRA-WIDEBAND (UWB) SUBSYSTEM:" 
	<linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
	QCA ath9k Development <ath9k-devel@....qualcomm.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Intel Linux Wireless <ilw@...ux.intel.com>,
	Linux ACPI <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
	"open list:AMD IOMMU (AMD-VI)" <iommu@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
	"open list:BLUETOOTH DRIVERS" <linux-bluetooth@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	Johannes Berg <johannes@...solutions.net>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
	"open list:EDAC-CORE" <linux-edac@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V4 1/2] ACPI / EC: Fix broken 64bit big-endian users of 'global_lock'

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 09:33:56 PM Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Saturday 26 September 2015 11:40:00 Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > On 25 September 2015 at 15:19, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > So if you allow something like debugfs to update your structure, how
> > > do you make sure there is the proper locking?
> > 
> > Not really sure at all.. Isn't there some debugfs locking that will
> > jump in, to avoid updation of fields to the same device?
> 
> No, if you need any locking to access variable, you cannot use the
> simple debugfs helpers but have to provide your own functions.
> 
> > >> Anyway, that problem isn't here for sure as its between two
> > >> unsigned-longs. So, should I just move it to bool and resend ?
> > >
> > > I guess it might be more convenient to fold this into the other patch,
> > > because we seem to be splitting hairs here.
> > 
> > I can and that's what I did. But then Arnd asked me to separate it
> > out. I can fold it back if that's what you want.
> 
> It still makes sense to keep it separate I think, the patch is clearly
> different from the other parts.

I just don't see much point in going from unsigned long to u32 and then
from 32 to bool if we can go directly to bool in one go.

Thanks,
Rafael

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/