linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: gadget: Avoid race between dwc3 interrupt handler and irq thread handler

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:   Tue, 27 Dec 2016 12:45:10 +0800
From:   Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
Cc:     Felipe Balbi <balbi@...nel.org>,
        Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        USB <linux-usb@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linaro Kernel Mailman List <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] usb: dwc3: gadget: Avoid race between dwc3 interrupt
 handler and irq thread handler

Hi,

On 12/27/2016 10:58 AM, Baolin Wang wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 27 December 2016 at 10:39, Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On 12/26/2016 04:01 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
>>> On some platfroms(like x86 platform), when one core is running the USB gadget
>>> irq thread handler by dwc3_thread_interrupt(), meanwhile another core also can
>>> respond other interrupts from dwc3 controller and modify the event buffer by
>>> dwc3_interrupt() function, that will cause getting the wrong event count in
>>> irq thread handler to make the USB function abnormal.
>>>
>>> We should add spin_lock/unlock() in dwc3_check_event_buf() to avoid this race.
>> Why not spin_lock_irq ones? This lock seems to be used in both
>> normal and interrupt threads. Or, I missed anything?
> I assumed there are no nested interrupts, when one core is running at
> interrupt context, then it can not respond any other interrupts, which
> means we don't need to disable local IRQ now, right?
>

Fair enough. Thanks.

Best regards,
Lu Baolu