linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno

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: <f4e3966d-bdc5-2816-2e4d-1b9046757b0f@linux.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 14 Jan 2019 10:51:07 +0100
From:   Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Rodrigo Siqueira <rodrigosiqueiramelo@...il.com>,
        Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>
Cc:     Gustavo Padovan <gustavo@...ovan.org>, Sean Paul <sean@...rly.run>,
        Dave Airlie <airlied@...ux.ie>,
        dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] drm/drm_vblank: Change EINVAL by the correct errno

Op 13-01-2019 om 21:23 schreef Rodrigo Siqueira:
> Hi,
>
> I resend this patch for CI via “intel-gfx@...ts.freedesktop.org” as
> Daniel suggested, and I got a feedback that reported an issue as can be
> seen here:
>
>    https://patchwork.freedesktop.org/series/51147/
>
> After a careful analysis of what happened, I concluded that the problem
> is related to the function “igt_wait_for_vblank_count()” in “igt_kms.c”.
> This function has the following assert:
>
>    igt_assert(drmWaitVBlank(drm_fd, &wait_vbl) == 0)
>
> This function only checks if everything went well with the
> drmWaitVBlank() operation and does not make any other validation. IMHO
> the patch is correct, and the problem pointed out by CI is not related
> to this change.

Hey,

Thanks for finding the root cause. Before upstreaming can you send a fix for i-g-t so we don't lose CI coverage after changing the behavior?

~Maarten