linux-kernel - Re: [Patch v2] wd719x: pass GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP

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: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1905291412360.242480@chino.kir.corp.google.com>
Date:   Wed, 29 May 2019 14:13:18 -0700 (PDT)
From:   David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>
To:     Hariprasad Kelam <hariprasad.kelam@...il.com>,
        Ondrej Zary <linux@...nbow-software.org>
cc:     "James E.J. Bottomley" <jejb@...ux.ibm.com>,
        "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@...cle.com>,
        linux-scsi@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [Patch v2] wd719x: pass GFP_ATOMIC instead of GFP_KERNEL

On Wed, 29 May 2019, Hariprasad Kelam wrote:

> dont acquire lock before calling wd719x_chip_init.
> 
> Issue identified by coccicheck
> 
> Signed-off-by: Hariprasad Kelam <hariprasad.kelam@...il.com>
> -----
> changes in v1: Replace GFP_KERNEL with GFP_ATOMIC.
> changes in v2: Call wd719x_chip_init  without lock as suggested
> 		in review

Why was host_lock taken here initially?  I assume it's to protect some 
race in init that leads to an undefined state.