linux-kernel - Re: [Outreachy 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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Mon, 11 Sep 2017 22:04:38 +0530
From:   Srishti Sharma <srishtishar@...il.com>
To:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        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: [Outreachy kernel] Re: [PATCH] Staging: ccree: Don't use volatile
 for monitor_lock

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:45 PM, Srishti Sharma <srishtishar@...il.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:41 PM, Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 11 Sep 2017, Srishti Sharma wrote:
>>
>>> 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 .
>>
>> Try removing it and see if the code still compiles.  There is always a
>> danger that a use of something could be constructed using ## in a macro,
>> although given the uses of ## for this driver, it doesn't seem likely
>> here.

It compiles, so I have removed the variable and sent another patch

Thanks,
Srishti

>
> Yes, I'll do that.
>
> Regards,
> Srishti
>>
>> julia