linux-kernel - Re: [patch 03/12] can: c

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: <5328947F.7070902@pengutronix.de>
Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2014 19:46:23 +0100
From:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
To:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	Wolfgang Grandegger <wg@...ndegger.com>,
	Markus Pargmann <mpa@...gutronix.de>,
	Benedikt Spranger <b.spranger@...utronix.de>,
	linux-can@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [patch 03/12] can: c_can: Make it SMP safe

On 03/18/2014 06:19 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> The hardware has two message control interfaces, but the code only
> uses the first one. So on SMP the following can be observed:
> 
> CPU0 	       	CPU1
> rx_poll()
>   write IF1	xmit()
> 		write IF1
>   write IF1			
> 
> That results in corrupted message object configurations. The TX/RX is
> not globally serialized it's only serialized on a core.
> 
> Simple solution: Let RX use IF1 and TX use IF2 and all is good.

Do both c_can and d_can have two control interfaces?

> Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>

Otherwise, looks good.

Tnx,
Marc

-- 
Pengutronix e.K.                  | Marc Kleine-Budde           |
Industrial Linux Solutions        | Phone: +49-231-2826-924     |
Vertretung West/Dortmund          | Fax:   +49-5121-206917-5555 |
Amtsgericht Hildesheim, HRA 2686  | http://www.pengutronix.de   |


Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (243 bytes)