linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] staging: vchiq: rework remove

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: <CAK8P3a1f0hJhZBbj6yf1ZZS3znDOSFK0e7KHveW95zjB1x=+tQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 11 Dec 2018 15:20:38 +0100
From:   Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To:     nsaenzjulienne@...e.de
Cc:     Eric Anholt <eric@...olt.net>,
        Stefan Wahren <stefan.wahren@...e.com>,
        gregkh <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, tn@...tmail.net,
        "moderated list:BROADCOM BCM2835 ARM ARCHITECTURE" 
        <linux-rpi-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        Linux ARM <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
        driverdevel <devel@...verdev.osuosl.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] staging: vchiq: rework remove_event handling

On Tue, Dec 11, 2018 at 1:36 PM Nicolas Saenz Julienne
<nsaenzjulienne@...e.de> wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-12-10 at 22:11 +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:

> > @@ -447,26 +444,26 @@ remote_event_wait(VCHIQ_STATE_T *state,
> > REMOTE_EVENT_T *event)
> >  }
> >
> >  static inline void
> > -remote_event_signal_local(VCHIQ_STATE_T *state, REMOTE_EVENT_T
> > *event)
> > +remote_event_signal_local(wait_queue_head_t *wq, REMOTE_EVENT_T
> > *event)
> >  {
> >       event->armed = 0;
> > -     complete((struct completion *)((char *)state + event->event));
> > +     wake_up_all(wq);
>
> Shouldn't this just be "wake_up(wq)"?

I wasn't entirely sure if we could get with more than one thread waiting
for the wakeup. With the semaphore or completion that would already
be broken because we'd only wake up one of them, but I was hoping
to stay on the safe side with wake_up_all().

       Arnd