linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] i2c: smbus: add unlocked __i2c_smbus

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, 26 Jun 2018 11:37:58 +0900
From:   Wolfram Sang <wsa@...-dreams.de>
To:     Peter Rosin <peda@...ntia.se>
Cc:     linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Vadim Pasternak <vadimp@...lanox.com>,
        Michael Shych <michaelsh@...lanox.com>,
        Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
        Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com>,
        Jean Delvare <jdelvare@...e.com>, linux-i2c@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] i2c: smbus: add unlocked __i2c_smbus_xfer variant


> This is not perfectly equivalent, since i2c_smbus_xfer was callable from
> atomic/irq context if you happened to end up emulating SMBus with an I2C
> transfer, and that is no longer the case with this patch. It is unknown
> (to me) if anything depends on that quirk, but it seems fragile enough to
> simply break those cases and require them to call i2c_transfer directly
> instead.

Couldn't we just add the same trylock-code path here as well? I always
wondered why I2C and SMBus were not in sync when it came to that. Yet, I
didn't want to change the code for no reason, but it seems we now have
one?

Rest of the series looks good to me, very nice diffstat!