linux-kernel - USB: serial: kfifo

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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100104174352.GA26606@localhost>
Date:	Mon, 4 Jan 2010 18:43:52 +0100
From:	Johan Hovold <jhovold@...il.com>
To:	Stefani Seibold <stefani@...bold.net>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org
Subject: USB: serial: kfifo_len locking

Hi Stefani,

I noticed that the locking that used to protect kfifo_len in
usb_serial_generic_chars_in_buffer was removed when the kifo api changed
to not use internal locking (c1e13f25674ed564948ecb7dfe5f83e578892896 -- 
kfifo: move out spinlock). 

Was this intentional?

I found a related discussion here

	http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/12/18/433

where you seem to say that no such locking is required as long as
kfifo_reset is never called (and that one could use kfifo_reset_out
instead)?

However, kfifo_reset was still being called when the locking was removed
and not until later was it changed to kfifo_reset_out
(119eecc831a42bd090543568932e440c6831f1bb -- Fix usb_serial_probe()
problem introduced by the recent kfifo changes).  

Does this last change imply that no locking in
usb_serial_generic_chars_in_buffer is required? If this is the case,
perhaps such locking guidelines could be added to kfifo.h?

Thanks,
Johan

--
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/