linux-kernel - Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: qcom: add sdm845 sound card 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-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20180620093106.GI13316@vkoul-mobl>
Date:   Wed, 20 Jun 2018 15:01:06 +0530
From:   Vinod <vkoul@...nel.org>
To:     Rohit Kumar <rohitkr@...eaurora.org>
Cc:     lgirdwood@...il.com, broonie@...nel.org, robh+dt@...nel.org,
        mark.rutland@....com, plai@...eaurora.org, bgoswami@...eaurora.org,
        perex@...ex.cz, srinivas.kandagatla@...aro.org, tiwai@...e.com,
        alsa-devel@...a-project.org, devicetree@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [alsa-devel] [PATCH] ASoC: qcom: add sdm845 sound card support

Hi Rohit,

On 20-06-18, 13:07, Rohit Kumar wrote:
> > On 19-06-18, 19:20, Rohit Kumar wrote:
> > > On 6/19/2018 10:35 AM, Vinod wrote:
> > > > On 18-06-18, 16:46, Rohit kumar wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > +struct sdm845_snd_data {
> > > > > +	struct snd_soc_card *card;
> > > > > +	struct regulator *vdd_supply;
> > > > > +	struct snd_soc_dai_link dai_link[];
> > > > > +};
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static struct mutex pri_mi2s_res_lock;
> > > > > +static struct mutex quat_tdm_res_lock;
> > > > any reason why the locks can't be part of sdm845_snd_data?
> > > > Also why do we need two locks ?
> > > No specific reason, I will move it to sdm845_snd_data.
> > > These locks are used to protect enable/disable of bit clocks. We have
> > > Primary MI2S RX/TX
> > > and Quaternary TDM RX/TX interfaces. For primary mi2s rx/tx, we have single
> > > clock which is
> > > synchronized with pri_mi2s_res_lock. For Quat TDM RX/TX, we are using
> > > quat_tdm_res_lock.
> > > We need two locks as we are protecting two different resources.
> > I think bigger question is why do you need any locks? What is the race
> > scenario you envision which needs protection
> > 
> 
> Below is one of the race condition:
> 
> Thread1                          |         Thread2
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> startup()                         |
> count++;                         |    startup()
> read count (count = 1) |
> enable_clock()               |    count++;   //count = 2
> shutdown()                    |
> count--;// count = 1      |
>                                          | read count (count = 1)
>                                          | enable_clock()
> 
> Here clock will be enabled twice but disable will be called only once when
> count = 0.
> 
> This will make the clock always enabled. So, I think we should keep either
> mutex lock or atomic variable to synchronize this.

we are using DPCM here right?

-- 
~Vinod