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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 19:28:43 +0100 From: Nicholas Mc Guire <der.herr@...r.at> To: Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@...entembedded.com> Cc: Kalle Valo <kvalo@....qualcomm.com>, Michal Kazior <michal.kazior@...to.com>, Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>, Chun-Yeow Yeoh <yeohchunyeow@...il.com>, Yanbo Li <yanbol@....qualcomm.com>, ath10k@...ts.infradead.org, linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] ath10k: a few incorrect return handling fix-up On Tue, 30 Dec 2014, Sergei Shtylyov wrote: > Hello. > > On 12/30/2014 03:20 PM, Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > >> wait_for_completion_timeout does not return negative values so the tests >> for <= 0 are not needed and the case differentiation in the error handling >> path unnecessary. > > I decided to verify your statement and I saw that it seems wrong. > do_wait_for_common() can return -ERESTARTSYS and the return value gets > returned by its callers unchanged. the -ERESTARTSYS only can be returned if state matches but wait_for_completion_timemout passes TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE so signal_pending_state will return 0 and never negativ my understanding of the callchain is: wait_for_completion_timemout with TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE -> wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) -> __wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) -> do_wait_for_common(...TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE) -> signal_pending_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE...) static inline int signal_pending_state(long state, struct task_struct *p) { if (!(state & (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE | TASK_WAKEKILL))) return 0; so wait_for_completion_timemout should return 0 or 1 only > >> patch was only compile tested x86_64_defconfig + CONFIG_ATH_CARDS=m >> CONFIG_ATH10K=m > >> patch is against linux-next 3.19.0-rc1 -next-20141226 > > Rather patches. It would have been better to send one patch instead of > 4 patches with the same name. > sorry for that - I had split it into separate patches as it was in different files - giving them the same name of course was a bit brain-dead. please do give it one more look - if the above argument is invalid I apologize for the noise. thx! hofrat -- 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists