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
| ||
|
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 14:46:14 +0200 From: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> To: Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com> Cc: Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>, Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, 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 On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 01:38:40PM +0200, Stefan Wahren wrote: > 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? I'll work to catch up on tty/serial patches soon...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists