| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CALrZqyPp30PNGRhVVnvv1FphTb7tK58+_sd=fCeSZ40LQaP9WA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Mar 2017 22:34:01 +0530
From: SIMRAN SINGHAL <singhalsimran0@...il.com>
To: Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com>
Cc: Lars-Peter Clausen <lars@...afoo.de>,
Michael Hennerich <Michael.Hennerich@...log.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jic23@...nel.org>,
Hartmut Knaack <knaack.h@....de>,
Peter Meerwald-Stadler <pmeerw@...erw.net>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-iio@...r.kernel.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
outreachy-kernel <outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Outreachy kernel] [PATCH v6] staging: Use buf_lock instead of
mlock and Refactor code
On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 10:18 PM, Alison Schofield <amsfield22@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2017 at 01:36:21AM +0530, simran singhal wrote:
>
> Hi Simran,
>
> I going to ask for a v7 without looking at the code ;)
> Subject line needs subsystem and driver.
> Subject and log message can be improved.
Hi Alison,
I have already sent v7 with changed subject.
>
>> The IIO subsystem is redefining iio_dev->mlock to be used by
>> the IIO core only for protecting device operating mode changes.
>> ie. Changes between INDIO_DIRECT_MODE, INDIO_BUFFER_* modes.
>>
>> In this driver, mlock was being used to protect hardware state
>> changes. Replace it with buf_lock in the devices global data.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^ this was not done
>>
>> As buf_lock protects both the adis16060_spi_write() and
>> adis16060_spi_read() functions and both are always called in
>> pair. First write, then read. Thus, refactor the code to have
>> one single function adis16060_spi_write_than_read() which is
>> protected by the existing buf_lock.
> This was done. So, you were able to obsolete the need for mlock
> by creating the paired function.
>
>>
>> Removed nested locks as the function adis16060_read_raw call
>> a lock on &st->buf_lock and then calls the function
>> adis16060_spi_write which again tries to get hold
>> of the same lock.
> ^^^^ this was not done. Yes, you avoided nested locks through
> proper coding, but we don't want to give the impression in the
> log message that there was a pre-existing nested lock issue.
>
> I did checkpatch & compile it...but looked no further yet.
>
> alisons
>>
>> Signed-off-by: simran singhal <singhalsimran0@...il.com>
>> ---
>>
>> v6:
>> -Change commit message
>> -Remove nested lock
>>
>> drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c | 40 ++++++++++---------------------
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c b/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c
>> index c9d46e7..1c6de46 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/iio/gyro/adis16060_core.c
>> @@ -40,25 +40,17 @@ struct adis16060_state {
>>
>> static struct iio_dev *adis16060_iio_dev;
>>
>> -static int adis16060_spi_write(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u8 val)
>> +static int adis16060_spi_write_than_read(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> + u8 conf, u16 *val)
>> {
>> int ret;
>> struct adis16060_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock);
>> - st->buf[2] = val; /* The last 8 bits clocked in are latched */
>> + st->buf[2] = conf; /* The last 8 bits clocked in are latched */
>> ret = spi_write(st->us_w, st->buf, 3);
>> - mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>> -
>> - return ret;
>> -}
>> -
>> -static int adis16060_spi_read(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u16 *val)
>> -{
>> - int ret;
>> - struct adis16060_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>
>> - mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock);
>> + if (ret < 0)
>> + return ret;
>>
>> ret = spi_read(st->us_r, st->buf, 3);
>>
>> @@ -69,8 +61,8 @@ static int adis16060_spi_read(struct iio_dev *indio_dev, u16 *val)
>> */
>> if (!ret)
>> *val = ((st->buf[0] & 0x3) << 12) |
>> - (st->buf[1] << 4) |
>> - ((st->buf[2] >> 4) & 0xF);
>> + (st->buf[1] << 4) |
>> + ((st->buf[2] >> 4) & 0xF);
>> mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>>
>> return ret;
>> @@ -83,20 +75,18 @@ static int adis16060_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> {
>> u16 tval = 0;
>> int ret;
>> + struct adis16060_state *st = iio_priv(indio_dev);
>>
>> switch (mask) {
>> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_RAW:
>> /* Take the iio_dev status lock */
>> - mutex_lock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>> - ret = adis16060_spi_write(indio_dev, chan->address);
>> + mutex_lock(&st->buf_lock);
>> + ret = adis16060_spi_write_than_read(indio_dev,
>> + chan->address, &tval);
>> + mutex_unlock(&st->buf_lock);
>> if (ret < 0)
>> - goto out_unlock;
>> + return ret;
>>
>> - ret = adis16060_spi_read(indio_dev, &tval);
>> - if (ret < 0)
>> - goto out_unlock;
>> -
>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>> *val = tval;
>> return IIO_VAL_INT;
>> case IIO_CHAN_INFO_OFFSET:
>> @@ -110,10 +100,6 @@ static int adis16060_read_raw(struct iio_dev *indio_dev,
>> }
>>
>> return -EINVAL;
>> -
>> -out_unlock:
>> - mutex_unlock(&indio_dev->mlock);
>> - return ret;
>> }
>>
>> static const struct iio_info adis16060_info = {
>> --
>> 2.7.4
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "outreachy-kernel" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to outreachy-kernel+unsubscribe@...glegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/outreachy-kernel/20170319200621.GA21295%40singhal-Inspiron-5558.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists