linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pciehp: Fix race condition handling surprise link-down

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: <20170307002417.GA21358@bhelgaas-glaptop.roam.corp.google.com>
Date:   Mon, 6 Mar 2017 18:24:17 -0600
From:   Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>
To:     "Raj, Ashok" <ashok.raj@...el.com>
Cc:     linux-pci@...r.kernel.org, Bjorn Helgaas <bhelgaas@...gle.com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Keith Busch <keith.busch@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pciehp: Fix race condition handling surprise link-down

On Fri, Feb 03, 2017 at 10:51:04AM -0600, Bjorn Helgaas wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 02, 2017 at 10:00:53PM -0800, Raj, Ashok wrote:
> > ...
> > Just to summarize, we only queue the POWEROFF due to surprise link down
> > and another POWERON due to link becoming back up. The transient link-down 
> > events are coveniently ignored.
> 
> I'm leery about ignoring events, though it happens to be convenient in
> this case.  I think we're ignoring them because we're running work
> items simultaneously with other items, and I think that concurrency is
> unnecessary complexity.
> 
> I think it would be safer to queue every event and process every event
> serially.

Hi Ashok,

Just a ping to make sure we're not deadlocked.  I'm waiting for you,
so I hope you're not also waiting for me :)  I'm not trying to rush you;
I just don't want to drop this by mistake.

Bjorn