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  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:   Sun, 8 Oct 2017 11:54:13 -0700
From:   "Kuppuswamy, Sathyanarayanan" <>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
Cc:     Alessandro Zummo <>,
        "" <>,
        Wim Van Sebroeck <>,
        Ingo Molnar <>,
        Alexandre Belloni <>,
        Zha Qipeng <>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <>,
        "" <>,
        Thomas Gleixner <>,
        Lee Jones <>,
        Andy Shevchenko <>,
        Souvik Kumar Chakravarty <>,,,
        "" <>,
        Platform Driver <>,
        Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan 
Subject: Re: [RFC v5 1/8] platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use spin_lock to
 protect GCR updates

Hi Andy,

On 10/8/2017 11:38 AM, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:19 AM,
> <> wrote:
>> From: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <>
>> Currently, update_no_reboot_bit() function implemented in this driver
>> uses mutex_lock() to protect its register updates. But this function is
>> called with in atomic context in iTCO_wdt_start() and iTCO_wdt_stop()
>> functions in iTCO_wdt.c driver, which in turn causes "sleeping into
>> atomic context" issue. This patch fixes this issue by replacing the
>> mutex_lock() with spin_lock() to protect the GCR read/write/update APIs.
>> Fixes: 9d855d4 ("platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Fix iTCO_wdt GCS memory mapping failure")
>> Signed-off-by: Kuppuswamy Sathyanarayanan <>
>>   * Rebased this patch on top of Andy's review branch.
> Oh, what I asked you is to use vanilla kernel as a base.
> Please, be sure (you assured me, though it's not true)
I did test this patch on top of 4.14-rc3, but I have included another 
patch (""platform/x86: intel_pmc_ipc: Use devm_* calls in driver probe 
function") from your review branch before testing.
I assumed that your will be pushing this patch along with devm_* fixes 
patch (since you already reviewed it), So I re-based them together on 
top of 4.14-rc3.  Sorry, it looks like my assumption is incorrect.
>   that it's
> applied against vanilla (or our fixes branch) and send just this one
> patch separately.
I will send it separately now.
> No need to resend v5 right now.

Powered by blists - more mailing lists