linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 09/16] [media] au6610: get rid of on-stack dma buffer

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]

Message-ID: <20110318222713.4c51f1ed@schatten.dmk.lab>
Date:	Fri, 18 Mar 2011 22:27:13 +0100
From:	Florian Mickler <florian@...kler.org>
To:	Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>
Cc:	mchehab@...radead.org, oliver@...kum.org, jwjstone@...tmail.fm,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-media@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 09/16] [media] au6610: get rid of on-stack dma buffer

On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 18:34:58 +0200
Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi> wrote:

> On 03/15/2011 10:43 AM, Florian Mickler wrote:
> > usb_control_msg initiates (and waits for completion of) a dma transfer using
> > the supplied buffer. That buffer thus has to be seperately allocated on
> > the heap.
> >
> > In lib/dma_debug.c the function check_for_stack even warns about it:
> > 	WARNING: at lib/dma-debug.c:866 check_for_stack
> >
> > Note: This change is tested to compile only, as I don't have the hardware.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Florian Mickler<florian@...kler.org>
> 
> 
> This patch did not found from patchwork! Probably skipped due to broken 
> Cc at my contact. Please resend.
> 
> Anyhow, I tested and reviewed it.
> 
> Acked-by: Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>
> Reviewed-by: Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>
> Tested-by: Antti Palosaari <crope@....fi>
> 
> [1] https://patchwork.kernel.org/project/linux-media/list/
> 
> Antti
> 

Yes, there was some broken adressing on my side. Sorry. 

Thanks for review && test!  I will resend (hopefully this weekend) the
series when I reviewed some of the other patches if it is
feasible/better to use prealocated memory as suggested by Mauro. 

How often does au6610_usb_msg get called in normal operation? Should it
use preallocated memory?

Regards,
Flo
--
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/