linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] pci/switchtec: fix stream

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 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:   Mon, 15 Apr 2019 16:38:57 +0200
From:   Sebastian Andrzej Siewior <bigeasy@...utronix.de>
To:     Kirill Smelkov <kirr@...edi.com>
Cc:     Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>, kbuild-all@...org,
        Kurt Schwemmer <kurt.schwemmer@...rosemi.com>,
        Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Bjorn Helgaas <helgaas@...nel.org>, linux-pci@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] pci/switchtec: fix stream_open.cocci warnings (fwd)

On 2019-04-13 17:00:59 [+0000], Kirill Smelkov wrote:
> Hello everyone,
Hi,

> On Sat, Apr 13, 2019 at 06:50:57PM +0200, Julia Lawall wrote:
> > Hello,
> > 
> > Kirill will explain about this issue.
> 
> pci/switchtec switching to stream_open is already queued to merge
> window and it was acked by Logan Gunthorpe:
> 
>         https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgqgN5j1ZWnyVLqqoyU=CCWTYOko3MDyU8L_5e21KvHAg@mail.gmail.com/
>         https://lab.nexedi.com/kirr/linux/commit/edaeb4101860
> 
> ( there are too many Cc's in that patch and email with it and reply-all to
>   it did not get into mailing list probably due to being considered as spam )
> 
> stream_open.cocci was issuing only warning for pci/switchtec, but after
> 8a29a3bae2a2 ("pci/switchtec: Don't use completion's wait queue") they
> started to use wait_even_* inside read method and, since
> stream_open.cocci considers wait_event_* as blocking the warning became
> error. Previously it was completions there, but I added support for wait
> events only for simplicity.

why is wait_event_interruptible() treated differently compared to
wait_for_completion_interruptible()?
> Kirill

Sebastian