linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] x86/PCI: add spinlock held check to 'pcibios_fwaddrmap

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: <20120302204136.GB24752@kroah.com>
Date:	Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:41:36 -0800
From:	Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
To:	Jesse Barnes <jbarnes@...tuousgeek.org>
Cc:	Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/PCI: add spinlock held check to
 'pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup()'

On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:24:05PM -0800, Jesse Barnes wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2012 12:00:27 -0800
> Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Mar 02, 2012 at 12:45:01PM -0700, Myron Stowe wrote:
> > > 'pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup()' is used to maintain FW-assigned BIOS BAR
> > > values for reinstatement when normal resource assignment attempts
> > > fail and must be called with the 'pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock' spinlock
> > > held.
> > > 
> > > This patch adds a WARN_ON notification if the spinlock is not currently
> > > held by the caller.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Myron Stowe <myron.stowe@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > > 
> > >  arch/x86/pci/i386.c |    2 ++
> > >  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > > index 33e6a0b..831971e 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/pci/i386.c
> > > @@ -57,6 +57,8 @@ static struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *pcibios_fwaddrmap_lookup(struct pci_dev *dev)
> > >  {
> > >  	struct pcibios_fwaddrmap *map;
> > >  
> > > +	WARN_ON(!spin_is_locked(&pcibios_fwaddrmap_lock));
> > > +
> > 
> > What is this going to help with?  How can someone then recover from this
> > issue?  Just adding a warning message isn't going to fix any problems
> > here, why not fix the root cause?
> 
> It's just a self-documenting assert; doesn't trigger anything and has
> more functionality than
>   /* Must hold the fwaddrmap_lock here */

Don't we have sparse markups that we can use to verify this instead
somehow?  Adding asserts isn't the nicest, as what will a user really do
about this if it ever gets hit?  And if a user isn't supposed to do
anything, then yes, a comment would be best I would think.

But I didn't realize you had asked for this, so no big deal, I'll go
back to lurking :)

greg k-h
--
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/