linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] PM / wakeirq: Add wakeup name to dedicated wake irqs

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: <CAHp75VcVNDV9FmPFTBHsJRoiHtOviwC68Wk+aCqhqteZw41ZzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Fri, 16 Feb 2018 12:39:48 +0200
From:   Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:     "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael@...nel.org>
Cc:     Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com>,
        "Rafael J . Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com>,
        Alan Stern <stern@...land.harvard.edu>,
        Linux PM <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Brian Norris <briannorris@...omium.org>,
        Grygorii Strashko <grygorii.strashko@...com>,
        Ulf Hansson <ulf.hansson@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] PM / wakeirq: Add wakeup name to dedicated wake irqs

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 11:14 AM, Rafael J. Wysocki <rafael@...nel.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 12:23 PM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 6:14 PM, Tony Lindgren <tony@...mide.com> wrote:
>>> This makes it easy to grep :wakeup /proc/interrupts.
>>
>> I used to have another patch (not published) to provide this
>> information via /sys/kernel/irq.
>>
>> OK, here we are:

> It's a bit hard to comment patches sent as attachments, but I'll try anyway. :-)

Sorry, I was thinking that Tony may test it first to see if it does
what he wants.
Of course I would send normally in case it's an expected approach.

> IMO it is somewhat excessive to put the entire sprintf() under a raw
> spinlock and it's not even necessary.

It's a copy'n'paste of from the rest of functions there.

> The value can change any time after you've dropped the lock and in
> particular before the function returns, so why bother with locking?
> desc will not go away from under you at that point anyway.

IIRC descriptor's content might be changed, or descriptor itself might
be gone (potential crash).

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko