linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for-4.9 04/53] spi: imx: adjust watermark level according to transfer length

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Date:   Thu, 9 Nov 2017 00:00:55 +0000
From:   "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@....verizon.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
CC:     "Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin)" <alexander.levin@....verizon.com>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>,
        Jiada Wang <jiada_wang@...tor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH AUTOSEL for-4.9 04/53] spi: imx: adjust watermark level
 according to transfer length

On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 11:11:11PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:48:14PM +0000, Levin, Alexander (Sasha Levin) wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 10:11:02PM +0000, Mark Brown wrote:
>
>> >expose problems if we start using it.  If you look at the history of the
>> >driver there's some quirks were added later on for example, and I didn't
>> >check the DMA controller drivers or anything and obviously can't see any
>> >out of tree code users may have.
>
>> I'm considering these commits to be on the safer side because they're
>> much older than the ones Greg usually grabs. There were no upstream
>> fixes to this commit for 10 months now, and given the code changes
>> upstream in that subsystem, this patch seemed to be safe to backport.
>
>Like I say I'm seeing some potentially relevant variant handling added
>later and you also have to consider the DMA drivers it might be used
>with (imx-dma looks safe but perhaps there's other things, never mind
>out of tree code).  It just doesn't feel good.
>
>We have also had problems in the past with SPI performance enhancements
>exposing exising problems elsewhere though not so much with this sort of
>area so I'm less worried about that.

Sure, I'll drop it. Thanks!

-- 

Thanks,
Sasha