linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] staging: greybus: Convert timers to use timer

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]

Date:   Mon, 30 Oct 2017 14:37:37 -0700
From:   Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To:     Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org>
Cc:     "Bryan O'Donoghue" <bryan.odonoghue@...aro.org>,
        "Bryan O'Donoghue" <pure.logic@...us-software.ie>,
        Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Alex Elder <elder@...nel.org>, greybus-dev@...ts.linaro.org,
        devel@...verdev.osuosl.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] staging: greybus: Convert timers to use timer_setup()

On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 4:48 AM, Johan Hovold <johan@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:44:22AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30/10/17 11:38, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> > On Mon, Oct 30, 2017 at 11:35:50AM +0000, Bryan O'Donoghue wrote:
>> >> On 30/10/17 11:32, Johan Hovold wrote:
>> >>> The right thing to do here is to respin your patch from last year which
>> >>> converts the loopback driver to use the timeout handling in greybus
>> >>> core.
>> >>
>> >> Actually I wasn't clear if you wanted to to that yourself aswell as the
>> >> rest if it.
>> >>
>> >> But sure I can do that conversion, it's on my list.
>> >
>> > IIRC it was basically done. Just some odd locking that could now also be
>> > removed.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> > Johan
>> >
>>
>> I think once Kees' change is applied to operation.c and we convert the
>> async stuff to operation.c's callbacks there ought to be no use of
>> timers, linked lists of operations.
>
> That's correct.
>
>> I'll probably need at least a day to look at that, so it'll be the
>> weekend before I can really allocate time.
>
> Cool. I'm quite sure I just rebased your loopback conversion patch on my
> core timeout handling and used that to test the core implementation, so
> it should be straight forward.

Hi,

I seem to have lost the thread of conversation a bit. What exactly
remains that I should be doing here for timer conversions? (It sounded
like it was already partially handled already?)

-Kees

-- 
Kees Cook
Pixel Security