linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] crypto: s5p-sss - Use mutex instead of spinlock

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: <20170317175405.hkvhbnzoeplksxkk@kozik-lap>
Date:   Fri, 17 Mar 2017 19:54:05 +0200
From:   Krzysztof Kozlowski <krzk@...nel.org>
To:     Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <b.zolnierkie@...sung.com>
Cc:     Herbert Xu <herbert@...dor.apana.org.au>,
        "David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
        linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vladimir Zapolskiy <vz@...ia.com>,
        Nathan Royce <nroycea+kernel@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] crypto: s5p-sss - Use mutex instead of spinlock

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 06:28:29PM +0100, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On Friday, March 17, 2017 04:49:22 PM Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
> > Driver uses threaded interrupt handler so there is no real need for
> > using spinlocks for synchronization.  Mutexes would do fine and are
> > friendlier for overall system preemptivness and real-time behavior.
> 
> Are you sure that this conversion is safe?  This driver also uses
> a tasklet and tasklets run in the interrupt context.
>

Yes, you're right. This is not safe and patch should be dropped. Thanks
for spotting this.

Best regards,
Krzysztof