linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor

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: <CAB3L5oxcyhgyy8EuGuPo9QtJQd-W7JTgQQE1PfopZFmSx58P9g@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2017 21:38:04 +0530
From:   Srishti Sharma <srishtishar@...il.com>
To:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc:     Gilad Ben-Yossef <gilad@...yossef.com>,
        Linux Crypto Mailing List <linux-crypto@...r.kernel.org>,
        driverdev-devel@...uxdriverproject.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
        Linux kernel mailing list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        outreachy-kernel@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile for monitor_lock

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 09:29:31PM +0530, Srishti Sharma wrote:
>> The use of volatile for the variable monitor_lock is unnecessary.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Srishti Sharma <srishtishar@...il.com>
>> ---
>>  drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c b/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c
>> index e5c2f92..7d77941 100644
>> --- a/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c
>> +++ b/drivers/staging/ccree/ssi_request_mgr.c
>> @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ struct ssi_request_mgr_handle {
>>       dma_addr_t dummy_comp_buff_dma;
>>       struct cc_hw_desc monitor_desc;
>>
>> -     volatile unsigned long monitor_lock;
>> +     unsigned long monitor_lock;
>
> While volatile is not right, odds are, this is still totally wrong as
> well.  How about using a "real" lock instead?

I tried to find where is this variable being used in the code, but I
didn't find any usage of it . It might be an important attribute of
this structure definition but, I don't see it's value being set to
anything or being used somewhere .

Regards,
Srishti
>
> thanks,
>
> greg k-h