linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: simplify TCS locking

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]

Date:   Wed, 24 Jul 2019 13:36:30 -0600
From:   Lina Iyer <ilina@...eaurora.org>
To:     Stephen Boyd <swboyd@...omium.org>
Cc:     agross@...nel.org, bjorn.andersson@...aro.org,
        linux-arm-msm@...r.kernel.org, linux-soc@...r.kernel.org,
        rnayak@...eaurora.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-pm@...r.kernel.org, dianders@...omium.org,
        mkshah@...eaurora.org, "Raju P.L.S.S.S.N" <rplsssn@...eaurora.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] drivers: qcom: rpmh-rsc: simplify TCS locking

On Wed, Jul 24 2019 at 12:32 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-24 07:54:52)
>> On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 14:19 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >Quoting Lina Iyer (2019-07-23 12:21:59)
>> >> On Tue, Jul 23 2019 at 12:22 -0600, Stephen Boyd wrote:
>> >> >Can you keep irq saving and restoring in this patch and then remove that
>> >> >in the next patch with reasoning? It probably isn't safe if the lock is
>> >> >taken in interrupt context anyway.
>> >> >
>> >> Yes, the drv->lock should have been irqsave/irqrestore, but it hasn't
>> >> been changed by this patch.
>> >
>> >It needs to be changed to maintain the irqsaving/restoring of the code.
>> >
>> May be I should club this with the following patch. Instead of adding
>> irqsave and restore to drv->lock and then remvoing them again in the
>> following patch.
>>
>
>I suspect that gets us back to v1 of this patch series? I'd prefer you
>just keep the save/restore of irqs in this patch and then remove them
>later. Or if the order can be the other way, where we remove grabbing
>the lock in irq context comes first and then consolidate the locks into
>one it might work.
>
Patches 1 and 3 need not be bundled. We can keep them separate to help
understand the change better.
This patch order - #2, #1, #3, #4 would work.

--Lina