linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] serdev: Restore serdev_device_write

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:   Wed, 17 May 2017 13:38:40 +0200
From:   Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.com>, Sebastian Reichel <sre@...nel.org>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>,
        Andrey Smirnov <andrew.smirnov@...il.com>,
        "linux-serial@...r.kernel.org" <linux-serial@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] serdev: Restore serdev_device_write_buf for atomic
 context

Hi Greg,

Am 08.05.2017 um 17:18 schrieb Johan Hovold:
> On Thu, May 04, 2017 at 03:32:53PM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>> On Thu, May 4, 2017 at 11:22 AM, Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> wrote:
>>> Am 02.05.2017 um 15:18 schrieb Johan Hovold:
>>>> On Tue, May 02, 2017 at 07:41:34AM -0500, Rob Herring wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, May 2, 2017 at 4:06 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 01:47:21PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote:
>>>>>>> Starting with commit 6fe729c4bdae ("serdev: Add serdev_device_write
>>>>>>> subroutine") the function serdev_device_write_buf cannot be used in
>>>>>>> atomic context anymore (mutex_lock is sleeping). So restore the old
>>>>>>> behavior.
>>>>>> Yeah, preventing use in atomic context seems unnecessary, although any
>>>>>> clients writing must now deal with serialisation themselves (as before,
>>>>>> and as they should).
>>>>> We could just remove the mutex for serdev_device_write and always make
>>>>> the client responsible for serialization.
>>>> That sounds reasonable.
>>> So it's unwanted to have 2 write functions (non-atomic, atomic)?
>> No, it's unwanted to have more than we need.
>>
>> Looking closer, we'd also have to ensure the wait for completion is
>> not called also. So probably better to just leave it as you have done
>> it.
> Indeed. Sorry if my reply above was unclear on that point (i.e. that
> Stefan's patch is still needed regardless of whether we keep the mutex
> or not).
>
> Thanks,
> Johan

are you okay with this patch and can you please apply it?

Stefan