linux-kernel - Re: function call fw_iso_resource_mange(..) (core-iso.c) does not return

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:	Wed, 22 May 2013 09:38:58 -0400
From:	Peter Hurley <peter@...leysoftware.com>
To:	Stefan Richter <stefanr@...6.in-berlin.de>
CC:	stephan.gatzka@...il.com, linux1394-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: function call fw_iso_resource_mange(..) (core-iso.c) does not
 return

On 05/21/2013 05:13 PM, Stefan Richter wrote:
>> FWIW, I still believe that we should revert to the original bus reset
>> as tasklet and redo the TI workaround to use TI-workaround-specific versions
>> of non-sleeping PHY accesses.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Peter Hurley
>
> I am a friend of the self-ID-complete worklet, for two reasons:
>    - Even if there was no need for the TI TSB41BA3D workaround (e.g. even
>      if we simply stopped supporting TSB41BA3D), it would still be
>      worthwhile to have at least the self-ID-complete IRQ BH performed in
>      a non-atomic context.  We should try to move as much of the
>      firewire-core self-ID-complete handler as possible out of the currently
>      spinlock protected section in order make more of this stuff
>      preemptible and replace a few GFP_ATOMIC slab allocations by GFP_NOFS
>      ones.  (Could be GFP_KERNEL in absence of firewire-sbp2.)
>      I would have liked to work on this already long ago, but such is life.

Sure. I understand reducing the card->lock critical section is desirable
(although even more care would be required when switching the work item).

>    - How do you propose to access the PHY registers without sleeping?
>      Or more to the point:  How do you propose to mix sleeping and
>      non-sleeping PHY register accesses?  (Since we can't get rid of
>      the sleeping ones.)  If the accesses are not fully serialized, you will
>      get corrupt PHY reg reads or writes.  If they are fully serialized, the
>      non-sleeping PHY reg accesses need to go a try-lock route and will be
>      forced to error out during periods when a sleeping PHY reg access goes
>      on, without even the ability to reschedule if it is done in a tasklet
>      context.

Although this point is largely irrelevant now, I wasn't suggesting mixing
sleeping and non-sleeping PHY access -- simply that the TI quirk would
require non-sleeping PHY access and every other host controller would
use sleeping PHY access.

Regards,
Peter Hurley
--
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/