linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] firmware_class: Use swait instead of completion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20160823235750.GN3296@wotan.suse.de>
Date:   Wed, 24 Aug 2016 01:57:50 +0200
From:   "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>
To:     Daniel Wagner <wagi@...om.org>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>,
        Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>,
        "Luis R . Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] firmware_class: Use swait instead of completion

On Tue, Aug 23, 2016 at 11:00:20AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> From: Daniel Wagner <daniel.wagner@...-carit.de>
> 
> complete_all() can only be issued once before it needs to be
> reinitialized. 

What are the chances this ever happened? If it could not happen its
worth explaining why.

> To ensure we never call complete_all() twice we use
> swait and make the code here a bit more robust.

The real benefit here though is not that is it? Isn't the benefit that
we don't need all the API functionality provided by wait, we just need
something light weight.

Thanks for splitting this up, it makes it for a much easier review.

  Luis