linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next] pwm: pca9685: Remove set but not used variable 'pwm'

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: <20190603155858.GF2781@lahna.fi.intel.com>
Date:   Mon, 3 Jun 2019 18:58:58 +0300
From:   Mika Westerberg <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com>
To:     Sven Van Asbroeck <thesven73@...il.com>
Cc:     Uwe Kleine-König 
        <u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
        YueHaibing <yuehaibing@...wei.com>,
        Thierry Reding <thierry.reding@...il.com>,
        Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>,
        linux-pwm@...r.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next] pwm: pca9685: Remove set but not used variable
 'pwm'

On Mon, Jun 03, 2019 at 11:08:06AM -0400, Sven Van Asbroeck wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 7:40 AM Mika Westerberg
> <mika.westerberg@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> >
> > I think you are right. pca9685_pwm_request() should take the mutex as
> > long as it is requesting PWM.
> 
> Yes, but things get hairy because pca9685_pwm_request() will have to
> give up the mutex when it returns. I cannot see a way to keep holding
> this mutex while the in-use flag is set by the pwm core ?

Right, I did not notice it's the PWM core that sets the flag.

> Alternatively, we could set (void *)1 pwm_data inside the pwm_request,
> wrapped inside the mutex.
> But then things get 'messy'.
> 
> > A flag would probably be easier to understand than the magic we have
> > now.
> 
> I have the feeling that a flag (plus a mutex) would be the clearest and
> safest way forward. I'll post a patch soon, you guys tell me what you
> think.

Sounds good thanks!