linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] mtd: rawnand: meson: only initialize the RB completion once

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20190419110044.6a2d7d86@xps13>
Date:   Fri, 19 Apr 2019 11:00:44 +0200
From:   Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@...tlin.com>
To:     Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
Cc:     Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>,
        linux-amlogic@...ts.infradead.org, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org,
        richard@....at, linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org,
        marek.vasut@...il.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        computersforpeace@...il.com, dwmw2@...radead.org,
        bbrezillon@...nel.org, jianxin.pan@...ogic.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] mtd: rawnand: meson: only initialize the RB
 completion once

Hi Martin,

Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com> wrote on Thu,
18 Apr 2019 21:44:05 +0200:

> Hi Liang,
> 
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2019 at 8:04 AM Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 2019/4/12 6:00, Martin Blumenstingl wrote:  
> > > Documentation/scheduler/completion.txt states:
> > >    Calling init_completion() on the same completion object twice is
> > >    most likely a bug as it re-initializes the queue to an empty queue and
> > >    enqueued tasks could get "lost" - use reinit_completion() in that case,
> > >    but be aware of other races.
> > >
> > > Initialize nfc->completion in meson_nfc_probe using init_completion and
> > > change the call in meson_nfc_queue_rb to reinit_completion so the logic
> > > matches what the documentation suggests.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Martin Blumenstingl <martin.blumenstingl@...glemail.com>
> > > ---
> > >   drivers/mtd/nand/raw/meson_nand.c | 3 ++-
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/meson_nand.c b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/meson_nand.c
> > > index 57cc4bd3f665..ea57ddcec41e 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/meson_nand.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/mtd/nand/raw/meson_nand.c
> > > @@ -400,7 +400,7 @@ static int meson_nfc_queue_rb(struct meson_nfc *nfc, int timeout_ms)
> > >       cfg |= NFC_RB_IRQ_EN;
> > >       writel(cfg, nfc->reg_base + NFC_REG_CFG);
> > >
> > > -     init_completion(&nfc->completion);
> > > +     reinit_completion(&nfc->completion);  
> > Tested-by:Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>
> > Acked-by: Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>  
> thank you for reviewing and testing my patches!
> 
> [...]
> > Tested-by:Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>
> > Acked-by: Liang Yang <liang.yang@...ogic.com>  
> please consider the following note for future code-reviews:
> most maintainers take the patch from patchwork and apply it to their git tree.
> however, patchwork is not smart enough to detect when the same
> Tested-by/Acked-by is sent multiple times.
> this results in the same Tested-by/Acked-by being listed multiple
> times in the final commit: [0]
> 
> what I do instead is to reply with one set of Tested-by/Acked-by
> (below the author's Signed-off-by) which is then valid for the whole
> patch.
> There's no problem to have Tested-by and Acked-by at the same time,
> the issue only shows up if you send Acked-by (or any other tag) for
> the same patch multiple times.

Crap, I did not noticed that.

Thanks for pointing it. I don't have time right now to fix it and send
a new PR, I'll see in one week.


Thanks,
Miquèl