linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] rtl8192u: Replace semaphore rf

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:	Thu, 02 Jun 2016 09:46:45 +0200
From:	Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:	Binoy Jayan <binoy.jayan@...aro.org>
Cc:	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
	devel@...verdev.osuosl.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] rtl8192u: Replace semaphore rf_sem with mutex

On Thursday, June 2, 2016 10:27:55 AM CEST Binoy Jayan wrote:
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U.h b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U.h
> index 2780838..7b921d4 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U.h
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U.h
> @@ -880,7 +880,7 @@ typedef struct r8192_priv {
>         short crcmon;
>  
>         struct mutex wx_mutex;
> -       struct semaphore rf_sem;        /* Used to lock rf write operation */
> +       struct mutex rf_mutex;  /* Used to lock rf write operation */
>  
>         u8 rf_type;                     /* 0: 1T2R, 1: 2T4R */
>         RT_RF_TYPE_819xU rf_chip;
> diff --git a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c
> index c6d3119..46d613a 100644
> --- a/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c
> +++ b/drivers/staging/rtl8192u/r8192U_core.c
> @@ -2374,7 +2374,7 @@ static void rtl8192_init_priv_lock(struct r8192_priv *priv)
>         spin_lock_init(&priv->tx_lock);
>         spin_lock_init(&priv->irq_lock);
>         mutex_init(&priv->wx_mutex);
> -       sema_init(&priv->rf_sem, 1);
> +       mutex_init(&priv->rf_mutex);
>         mutex_init(&priv->mutex);
>  }

I think this one should be done differently: as there are obviously no users of
this semaphore, there is no need to replace it with a mutex, it should just be
removed entirely.

	Arnd