linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] ptp: introduce programmable pins.

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: <20140320204307.GA4931@netboy>
Date:	Thu, 20 Mar 2014 21:43:08 +0100
From:	Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>
To:	David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
Cc:	netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	ben@...adent.org.uk, christian.riesch@...cron.at,
	stefan.sorensen@...ctralink.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 1/9] ptp: introduce programmable pins.

On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 09:25:34PM -0400, David Miller wrote:
> 
> This locking seems unnecessarily complex to me.  You should be able to
> do the stateless sanity checks, take the mutex, then do all of the
> rest of the operations until the end of the function before
> dropping the lock.
> 
> So just take the lock once over the operations that need it.

The idea was to avoid holding the mutex when invoking the driver
callbacks (.verify and .enable). Mostly this is my paranoia that some
bad driver will call back into the core via ptp_set_pinfunc().

But you are right that the result is overly complex. I'll make the
callers of ptp_set_pinfunc hold the mutex, and so the set path will
look just like the get path.

Thanks,
Richard
--
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/