linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: viperboard: allocate I/O buffer separately

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:	Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:28:53 +0200
From:	Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
To:	Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>
Cc:	Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-usb@...r.kernel.org,
	johan@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] mfd: viperboard: allocate I/O buffer separately

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:12:06AM +0100, Lee Jones wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014, Octavian Purdila wrote:
> 
> > Currently the I/O buffer is allocated part of the device status
> > structure, potentially sharing the same cache line with other members
> > in this structure.
> > 
> > Allocate the buffer separately, to avoid the I/O operations corrupting
> > the device status structure due to cache line sharing.
> > 
> > Compiled tested only as I don't have access to hardware.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Octavian Purdila <octavian.purdila@...el.com>
> > ---
> >  drivers/mfd/viperboard.c       | 8 ++++++++
> >  include/linux/mfd/viperboard.h | 2 +-
> >  2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > 
> > diff --git a/drivers/mfd/viperboard.c b/drivers/mfd/viperboard.c
> > index e00f534..5f62f4e 100644
> > --- a/drivers/mfd/viperboard.c
> > +++ b/drivers/mfd/viperboard.c
> > @@ -64,6 +64,12 @@ static int vprbrd_probe(struct usb_interface *interface,
> >  		return -ENOMEM;
> >  	}
> >  
> > +	vb->buf = kzalloc(sizeof(struct vprbrd_i2c_write_msg), GFP_KERNEL);
> 
> Can you obtain the 'struct device' first then use managed resources
> (devm_*)?

I think any devres conversion should be done in a follow-up patch and
not be included in the fix (e.g. in order to facilitate backporting). We
also don't want to mix allocation schemes.

Johan
--
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/