linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not use kfifo for storing hotkey scancodes

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: <20170622200856.GA4194@kmp-mobile.hq.kempniu.pl>
Date:   Thu, 22 Jun 2017 22:08:56 +0200
From:   Michał Kępień <kernel@...pniu.pl>
To:     Darren Hart <dvhart@...radead.org>
Cc:     Rafael Wysocki <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
        Jonathan Woithe <jwoithe@...t42.net>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        platform-driver-x86@...r.kernel.org, linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] platform/x86: fujitsu-laptop: do not use kfifo for
 storing hotkey scancodes

> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 06:40:52AM +0200, Michał Kępień wrote:
> > All ACPI device notify callbacks are invoked using acpi_os_execute(),
> > which causes the supplied callback to be queued to a static workqueue
> > which always executes on CPU 0.  This means that there is no possibility
> > for any ACPI device notify callback to be concurrently executed on
> > multiple CPUs, which in the case of fujitsu-laptop means that using a
> > locked kfifo for handling hotkeys is redundant: as hotkey scancodes are
> > only pushed and popped from within acpi_fujitsu_laptop_notify(), no risk
> > of concurrent pushing and popping exists.
> 
> Was the kfifo causing a problem currently or for the migration to separate
> modules? Is this purely a simplification?

It is just another step in stripping fujitsu-laptop down to its bare
essentials.  If my reasoning quoted above is correct, using a locked
kfifo needlessly suggests potential concurrency issues, but it is
definitely not an error.

-- 
Best regards,
Michał Kępień