linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Add hardware spinlock support

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:   Tue, 31 Oct 2017 11:37:18 +0000
From:   Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To:     Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@...aro.org>
Cc:     Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        Lee Jones <lee.jones@...aro.org>,
        Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] regmap: Add hardware spinlock support

On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 07:31:57PM +0800, Baolin Wang wrote:
> On 31 October 2017 at 18:38, Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org> wrote:

> > Given that we have no error handling path on the locks should we be
> > supporting timeout mode at all?  Otherwise we should probably add a
> > set of error handling paths whenever we take the lock...

> It will be more helpful to use the timeout to try more times to get
> the hwlock, and we usually do not use hwspin_trylock_xxx(), so we can
> remove hwspin_trylock_xxx() support and set timeout as MAX value as
> default to avoid adding 'hwlock_timeout' config,
> is this OK for you?

I *think* so - but let's see the code.  It might make sense to do two
patches, one with the base hwspinlock support then another adding the
timeout functionality.  That way if there's any problem we can still
merge the non-timeout code and there's less to review next time.

Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)