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]

Date:	Tue, 18 Mar 2014 20:40:10 +0100 (CET)
From:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:	Marc Kleine-Budde <mkl@...gutronix.de>
cc:	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	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 Tue, 18 Mar 2014, Marc Kleine-Budde wrote:

> 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?

According to the manual it has.

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/